PreviousNext…

More XHTML

After reading Mark's rant yesterday, I read some of the follow-ups. This one I don't get. Matt Jones says:

The development of XHTML has seen the W3C slowly chip away at the specification of HTML, and for good reason: to make the Web leaner, faster and easier to build. Because the W3C are dropping a handful of tags like <q> and <cite>, Mark seems to believe that they are dropping semantic mark-up.

OK, but surely Mark was getting at the fact that the working draft for XHTML 2.0 ignores or reverses XHTML 1.0? If XHTML 2.0 isn't going to implement stuff that appears in XHTML 1.0, or at least allow for transition, then it should be renamed. It's not XHTML. And anyway, where are the tags to replace those that have been deprecated in v2.0? (Note my spelling: "depreciated" is an entirely different word…)

Maybe I should just shut up and actually read the working draft.

Back to Notes & Domino: Julian has some "DXLScript". Very cool, this is some code that extracts Lotusscript from DXL source.

Comments on this post are now closed.

About

I’m a software architect / developer / general IT wrangler specialising in web, mobile web and middleware using things like node.js, Java, C#, PHP, HTML5 and more.

Best described as a simpleton, but kindly. You can read more here.

";