James Bennett: Why HTML. Finally, somewhere to point people when they ask why I avoid XHTML that’s a bit more up to date than Hixie’s rant from 2002.
Sign in with 
OpenID
James Bennett: Why HTML. Finally, somewhere to point people when they ask why I avoid XHTML that’s a bit more up to date than Hixie’s rant from 2002.
I wrote on this subject a couple of years ago, too ( http://www.markng.co.uk/blog/2005/8/8/why_not_xhtm l ). Since then, I have switched to XHTML 1.0 Strict sent as HTML simply through laziness in terms of various tools I use making it much easier for me to work with XHTML.
However, whenever I talk to people about XHTML, most people, when asked about Appendix C look at you blankly, and look horrified if you say you use HTML 4 for things. People have the misconception that XHTML is "cleaner" and that you can't write semantic code in HTML 4. That's a misconception worth destroying.
I have no pretense that my outputting XHTML is in any way useful to anybody. I just have that partially-obsessive anal-retentive geek tendency that *likes* always closing tags.
Now, if just someone would finally realize that HTML (as served from a web server) and XHTML are semantically equivalent wire formats, and that the purpose of them is to transfer a DOM tree between two computers, I'd be even happier.
Fredrik - 20th June 2008 10:27 - #