Anne van Kesteren

Questions on XHTML2


  1. I don't think most people will write semantically in the near future, probably never (as least for those popular "non-geek" websites). Not even XHTML 1.1. :-'(

    Posted by minghong at

  2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think, that line is a semantic information. The information part is day and year. To display these in different lines is presentation.

    Posted by Chris at

  3. For me XHTML2 is just a very good xml format for webpages. To use it as the rendering format is probably not a good idea. CSS is just not good enough to transform semantic content into the preferred rendering.

    I really love how I can use XSL to transform XHTML2 (+XInclude+XMLEvents+XForms) to HTML4+CSS+JavaScript. I might even do a transformation to SVG+CSS+Ajax some day. The important part is that I have my content in a format that describes the semantics just right (for now at least).

    Posted by Sjoerd Visscher at

  4. The XHTML 2 Namespace is known. It's defined in the conformance definition of the current draft.

    Posted by Lachlan Hunt at

  5. It is also not to be used as the specification hasn’t reached a certain maturity and therefore I didn’t use it in my post. The final namespace is yet unknown and will most likely look like Unless they sneak it in earlier, that is.

    Posted by Anne at

  6. In my mind, people tend to gravitate toward something that makes sense, which is a rather subjective item.

    And until there is an understanding that XHTML is a data exchange format for delivering information to the UA, and not the markup language for Web pages, it will make sense for developers to write semantically invalid code.

    Posted by Dimitri Glazkov at

  7. Will people just look at solutions or at correct solutions? I think the former.

    Like they always (seem to?) do.

    Posted by Jens Meiert at

  8. How does XHTML2 interact with the DOM? An example: What is DOM events processing model for nested links?

    Just like the way it happens right now I think. I don't see some special information on the new way to handle it, so I assume it will just stay with the system of event bubbling like it is now. Or do I misinterpret your question about this phenomenon?

    Posted by Pieter Belmans at

  9. I'm more concerned about software that generates code. Seems to me, that most who write their code manually, are hip to what they should be doing. So the real issue is, how do we encourage frontpage, nvu, and others, generate something proper? This ensures proper coding techniques by anyone who doesn't have time to learn how to do it right or has no interest in learning to code.

    Posted by Devon at

  10. Devon > the best way to ensure NVu generates proper code is to contribute to it or help Daniel Glazman by bugfeeding him, or whatever you want to do.

    Frontpage, on the other hand...

    Posted by Masklinn at

  11. Your date example gets superfluous when people hopefully start to use ISO 8601. :-)

    The question on XHTML 2 which I have on my mind for the last months is: Do we need a new MIME media type for XHTML 2? Perhaps with versioning information (which was brought into discussion again for the actual JavaScript/ECMAScript media type proposal). I am sure that there will be lots of browsers that will choke on XHTML 2 code fed to them while requesting application/xhtml+xml, but only knowing XHTML 1.x.

    Posted by Lars Kasper at

  12. Lars Kasper, they won’t. They will treat it as any namespace they don’t know. And since browsers should support every */*+xml MIME type in theory and Opera does, that isn’t an effective solution. For XML browsers rely on namespaces anyway. Think of SVG or XHTML send as application/xml in Mozilla.

    What we really need is some namespace negotiation header in HTTP.

    Posted by Anne at