Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
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)