Burningbird

Tina Holmboe from the XHTML WG has written a concise overview of XHTML titled XHTML—Myths and Realities. She's provided a nice overview of the markup, including the purpose behind the development of XHTML and the state of XHTML today. The only somewhat jarring note I found about the overview is it seems that Tina went a bit out of her way not to sell XHTML. Perhaps this seeming "you should really need it before using it" push is the reality part of the topic.

I use content negotiation for my sites, serving up XHTML for those browsers and agents that can process XHTML, and HTML for the rest. I'm looking into embedded RDFa into my text in a new iteration of yet another site design, but my main reason for using XHTML is that I like to keep open the possibility of using inline SVG. I also think that support for XHTML seems to be broader than is implied by Tina, but again that could be her trying to downplay any hyperbole about XHTML—there's hyperbole about XHTML?

Though I know this is outside of Tina's overview, I would have like to have more focus on the differences between the HTML5/WhatWG stuff and XHTML 2.0. It's confusing that we have one group working supposedly on an "XHTML 5.0", and another on XHTML 2.0. Especially when one of the main issues to do with XHTML 2.0 was XForms, while a milestone reached with HTML5 recently was the incorporation of Web Forms 2.0—but don't let the "forms" that appears in both fool you into thinking we have any form of consensus or agreement.

I'm beginning to think that the HTML5 working group should completely and thoroughly remove all support for, and even mention of, XHTML from the HTML5 specification. The group finds extensibility to be anathema, but extensibility through namespaces is the heart and soul of XHTML. Seems to me that any form of XHTML, or nod to XHTML, coming out of the group would be a bastard cousin, at best.

Instead of XHTML coming out of the HTML5 group, perhaps we could look at ways to incorporate the new HTML5 objects via namespace to XHTML, but via the W3C XHTML path. In other words, honor the extensibility of XHTML, accept the necessity of a closed world for HTML5 and have one path for HTML, one separate path for XHTML, with the twain meeting via DOM. After all, it's only serialization differences between XForms and Web Forms 2.0, right?

Or, conversely, we abandon the separate XHTML 2.0 path, and incorporate and embrace extensibility into HTML5. But I'm not one to bank on pigs flying.

I'm not a markup expert, nor am I involved in developing browsers, so perhaps my view is both simplistic and naive. But I can't help thinking that the HTML5 working group does not have the mindset or interest in extensibility, and at most, will toss bits of seeming extensibility in to placate the noisy. However, this group's continuing reference to an "XHTML 5" is confusing when you consider there's a separate, formal upgrade path for XHTML 2.0. The W3C says there's nothing to worry about because it's all just serialization under the skin—but it goes beyond just basic serialization techniques, doesn't it? If it were just serialization technique differences, would the same topics keep arising in the HTML5 WG threads? I mean, if working with RDF has taught me one thing, it's that converting between two different forms of serialization is trivial—it's the underlying model that matters.

Really, the W3C is leaving all of this in a bit of a mess.

However, I both digress and am going off on a tangent. This post was about Tina Holmboe's XHTML overview, which is excellent and worth a read.

(via Simon Willison)

And now, for some appropriately themed music...

A List Apart has a timely article titled Understanding Progressive Enhancement discussing the perceptual differences between graceful degradation and progressive enhancement. I enjoyed seeing Steve Champeon's idea given new light. Additionally, now is as good a time as any to have a go at these topics, with the many new enhancements being added to today's browsers, while antiques still cutter cyberspace. I could have done without the cloyingly cute M & M analogy in the article, but that's probably my inner Cranky Woman having a go this AM.

I've written about graceful degradation, previously. Graceful degradation means applying modern technology but ensuring the application doesn't negatively effect those viewing a web site with an Antique (remaining nameless). However, contrary to the ALA author's statement of Under this paradigm, older browsers are expected to have a poor, but passable experience, graceful degradation is just that: gracefully degrading, meaning that though the person using the Antique doesn't get all the bells or whistles, their experience at the site is more than "poor but passable".

Progressive enhancement, on the other hand, begins with the content, rather than the technology; ensuring that the markup used to organize the content is semantically correct and valid. Then, and only then, the web site developer progresses to the use of CSS and JavaScript, both to annotate and enhance the content. That's been the primary difference between the two approaches: graceful degradation tends to focus on technology, first, while progressive enhancement focuses on content, first.

Of course, the two are not exclusive: one can use progressive enhancement techniques, beginning with the content outward, paying particular attention to the semantics of the markup, and then apply the technique of graceful degradation when applying CSS and JavaScript. In particular when using Content Management Systems, such as Drupal and Wordpress, it's important to not neglect the semantics by focusing overmuch on the themes, widgets, and other, frequently annoying, gewgaws.

Australian Janet Albrechtsen chastises us yanks and our fixation on house ownership in a Wall Street Journal article titled Not Everyone Should Own a Home. In it she writes:

Maybe only a friendly foreigner could say this. But America needs to realize that not everyone can own a home. The American Dream of home ownership for all is a fraud. Politicians who pimped this dream created an unsustainable mortgage industry whose collapse is only surprising because it didn't happen earlier. America's mortgage industry will not recover, nor deserve to recover, unless it is prepared to challenge this politically unpalatable reality.

Why listen to an Australian like me? For starters, as our central banker, Glenn Stevens, said a few weeks back, Australian banks are "light years away from what's happening in other banking systems around the world." Australia's four major banks sit amongst the 20 AA rated banks around the globe. And as the Sept. 23 International Monetary Fund Country Report on Australia concluded, Australia's banking sector "is sound with stable profit, high capitalization and few non-performing loans."

Not knowing much about the Australian banking system, I can't say whether Albrechtsen and her assessment of the health of Australian banks is accurate, but I do believe she has a good point about home ownership in the US. It is ridiculous to continue equating home ownership with some nebulous "American dream".

I live in a rental townhome, and yes, I've thought about owning my own home for years—especially after a testy confrontation with a neighbor last week when he felt it was OK to play his guitar outside on his patio at 1 o'clock in the morning. But individual home ownership is not only economically nonviable, it's not environmentally sound. We can't keep tearing farmland up just to put in new subdivisions, or destroying habitat in order to support suburban sprawl. We also can't continue to bank our future income on selling mortgage-free homes, nor should we continue to tightly join economic health and "growth". Most importantly, though, we have to stop equating success with home ownership.

When I was in Boston, living in a rental was not unusual, nor were you judged and found not wanting if you didn't own your own place. After all, the lofts are outrageously priced, and individual homes are an increasing rarity in over crowded cities. The large apartment building we lived in was very well built. We didn't hear our neighbors, and we had a lovely view of the Boston Marathon every Spring. Best of all, one of the subways stopped right in front of our place, and we only had to take our car out a couple of times a month in order to do larger grocery shopping.

Our place was built in front of a small reservoir, which provided home for several geese and ducks, and a lovely place to walk every evening. In addition, a plot of land was deeded to the community and everyone could apply for their small patch of ground in order to grow fruits or vegetables.

Along our street, some of the buildings were condo, some were rental apartments, but you couldn't tell the two apart. Most importantly, those who owned condos didn't get first access to the subway, or a bigger plot in the community garden. The ducks didn't follow the condo owners more, in hopes of tidbits. The street didn't crack under the feet of the renters. It just didn't matter if you owned, or rented—only that you didn't play your guitar on your patio at 1 o' clock in the night.

This style of living is the way of the future, not only in the States, but for the world. We don't have to own a house to have a home. And we don't have to own anything to be successful.

From Huffington Post:

At a rally on Saturday in California, Sarah Palin offered up a rather jarring argument for supporting the Republican ticket. "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women," the Alaska Governor said, claiming she was quoting former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

The statement came after Palin had recounted a "providential" moment she experienced on Saturday: "I'm reading on my Starbucks mocha cup, okay? The quote of the day... It was Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State [crowd boos] and UN ambassador. ... Now she said it, I didn't. She said, 'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"

By the way, I categorically deny that I'm endorsing Palin.

(via Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic)

While I appreciate Mark Pilgrim's This week in HTML5 land weekly reports, there's one underlying thread that occurs every month that Mark doesn't necessarily touch on: the issue of distributed extensibility. You know, the namespace, XHTML, SVG and MathML et al thing that doesn't go away.

For instance, catching up on my HTML5 Working Group public archives reading, I found this gem from Chris Wilson of Microsoft:

You are correct, we cannot definitively say why XHTML has not been successful on the Web. However, I do believe that part of that lack of success is due to the less-forgiving XML syntax, and part of it is due to the degradation story (or lack thereof) in browsers and versions that don't support it. (I don't want to turn this into a pro/con XML debate either.) Part of its success in the future will be due to the important and focus it is lent by all of the major browsers. Perhaps I am misreading the tea leaves; I don't see much interest in XHTML's future from the other browsers. I do think XHTML would have a lot of positives as a basis; however, it does have a few negatives, and it would need to be a universal push if it were to be successful.

I would say that we can definitively state why XHTML has had limited success on the web: lack of implementation and support in IE, one of the web's major browsers. In addition, none of the other browsers have said that they aren't interested in supporting XHTML in the future. The fact that Microsoft's main IE architect would make this statement leads me to believe he should be in politics.

And I'm only up to August in the archives. What other delights await in September and October...