Yes, it’d be nice if everyone kept up to date on the progress of the various W3C working groups. They don’t. There are a lot of people who asked what professional markup looked like and were told (right or wrong) that XHTML was the future. So they went ahead and learned XHTML, built their websites and chose watching a DVD or spending time with their kids over watching Mark Pilgrim and Sam Ruby do battle over Postel’s Law. Now all of a sudden they’re told XHTML is dead. Some wailing and gnashing of teeth is to be expected. What’s needed is less “boy aren’t I smarter than them” snideness, and more Hey, here’s what’s up.
Sign in with 
OpenID
I'm not sure I buy this argument; there are too many people who've gotten really basic, big-picture bits wrong.
One good example is the "XHTML is more semantic than HTML" meme; I honestly have no idea where it started, but it's fairly pervasive and it's absolutely wrong. And not only is it wrong, it's obviously wrong to anyone who spends a couple minutes looking at the differences (aside from maybe adding an XML prolog, which most folks learned not to do, and changing the DOCTYPE, all the visible-to-the-typical-author differences between XHTML and HTML are syntactic -- there's nary a new element or attribute in sight).
Ditto "XHTML is better for accessibility" and a whole host of other rampant misconceptions. You don't need to be a Mark Pilgrim or a Sam Ruby to know that they're wrong and know why they're wrong. You don't have to subscribe to W3C mailing lists. You don't have to read the specs, even.
And I don't honestly look at this as "aren't I smarter than them snideness"; I look at it as "bloody hell, how do these people get away with calling themselves professionals when they're this badly informed on fundamentals of their profession".
It is, of course, a truism that there are more and less competent professionals in every industry.
To act surprised that the same holds true in one of the world's fastest growing and most open professions is as absurd as some of the comments over on Zeldman's post.
There are no requirements to be considered a professional web developer. Say it and it's so, unfortunately. It is not like being a professional builder, who must pass licensing exams to prove they understand current building codes. Building codes are written to save lives and preserve property values. Pedantically understanding the HTML specs and discerning the finer differences between XHTML & HTML is never going to be a reality for all but the most competent web professionals. Get used to it. You should already be intimately familiar with this reality: People are wrong on the internet.
There's already plenty of "Hey, here's what's up" resources out there. If these "professionals" wanted to understand the fundamentals, it can be easily had.
@James. That there are too many people who've gotten the really basic, big picture things wrong points to the fact that "we" (people advocating for web standards/HTML 5/etc) are doing something wrong. I think a big part of that is the tone of advocacy, and an assumption that this stuff is obvious. It's not, and it's particularly not for people who haven't been a part of the conversation for the past 10 years
@Joshua It's true that there are some people who are never going to care about their markup, but it's unfair to wave your hand at The Internet and say "it's easy to find the fundamentals". It's not. It's a cacophony of voices and advocates on all sides have compelling rhetoric. The main point of my comment was that attacking someone's competence and/or intelligence isn't the best way in the world to win them over to your side.
Alan Storm - 4th July 2009 22:59 - #
HTML5 doesn't matter.
It is a design, an idea. It may come to fruition, and I hope it does. But it is not HTML5 which is important.
We seem to forget that the designers of HTML5 are not implementing a browser. They are merely setting guidelines for how browsers should work. Browsers vendors have the option to implement the spec, but are not forced to--and, in fact, browser vendors have final veto power over the spec.
The only thing I have ever understood about doctypes is that the right ones will cause web browsers to work in a (more) standards-compliant (read: logical) mode. Again, it is what browser vendors have chosen to implement, so it is what I must use, and what specs, like HTML5, must follow.
If we were to truly talk web religion, as it seems a lot of people are wont to do, then perhaps it would be better to scream that doctypes make no sense. Why should we have to say that we are providing good, clean code that is standards compliant? True, websites would break, but that is the fault of those respective websites. If we are going to be all fundamentalist about it, aren't those sites, perhaps, too crappy to be online? Let them die.
Of course, that isn't practical. Perhaps it would be, if browser vendors would go for it: developers would, perhaps, change their code to be standards-compliant. They will not, however, because they are too afraid of breaking the internet (and I can't really blame them).
I have tremendous respect for the people writing the next generation of web standards. I think that the current set of standards is extremely logical and sensical, and what I have seen of the next set looks just as logical and sensical. Standards are truly very nice.
But in the end, I think we worry a bit too much about the standards, and a bit too little about the browsers and the internet that support them. Who cares what the difference between XHTML and HTML are, so long as web browsers support them? One may be more popular than the other, one may be where the web is moving, but in the end, HTML is HTML. All of the tags work the same. CSS is the same. We are not developing web sites and applications that run on these future platforms, we are developing web sites and applications that run on current platforms, and the current platform seems almost identical whether you are on the HTML5 bandwagon or the XHTML bandwagon.
The future spec is in the future. We can care about in that we can cheer for this or that; but if some web developers aren't bothering to keep well versed about it, who can blame them? They have jobs in which they can only use the current feature set. Some of HTML5's features are available today, but, unfortunately, none of them are supported in even one half of end users' machines.
Professionals are not "badly informed on the fundamentals of their profession." Professionals are making things work. Their code is written nicely and is standards compliant (even if they haven't ever read any of the specs), their designs are well thought out, and their code works across all browsers it is supposed to. These are the fundamentals of their profession. To them, HTML5, while a nice promise for the future, and something they may want to interact with, does not matter in the immediate sense. The only thing that matters is what works, what will keep working, and, optimally, what will not slow the web's progress down.
Disclaimer: I am not an HTML expert. I like my HTML, but my fields are visual design and programming (in this context, Illustrator+Photoshop and JavaScript). Also, it is late at night, so forgive me if these are the rantings of a raving lunatic. Perhaps if I still agree with what I wrote tomorrow, I'll post it on my blog.
Alex Iskander - 6th July 2009 06:45 - #
How has this ever not been the case? If the implementors don't implement a standard then it's nothing more than dead trees.
The positive thing about HTML5 is that browser vendors are involved TODAY with the spec rather than picking and choosing later (well, in spite of Chris Wilson, Microsoft is still doing that, but at least the others are actively involved).
huxley - 6th July 2009 08:20 - #
It has always been the case. The great thing about HTML5 is that it is already being implemented. But, from the perspective of a developer, it does not matter in the immediate sense, as it is still unusable (unless you are fortunate enough to not have to support all browsers).
Unlike some have suggested, it is not like builders not knowing building codes. Rather, it is like builders not being aware of what the building codes might be in a few years, when there had, previously, been two possible ways the building codes could end up, and even now, it could keep changing. They are too busy implementing things for today; while they should, optimally, be somewhat aware of what is coming tomorrow (as, if they are not, they will end up being left behind), things coming tomorrow are coming tomorrow. Is it terrible to focus on the here and now? Sure they should be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment.*
HTML5 and XHTML are not and have never been the "fundamentals" of the web. Neither (from what I am aware, although I never paid enough attention to XHTML to be sure) are yet very fully implemented cross-browser. Browsers are the fundamentals of the web; for better, and quite often, for worse.
* paraphrasing Qui-Gon Jinn.
Alex Iskander - 6th July 2009 14:50 - #