Anyone heard an "official" date for XHTML2?

Discussion about HTML and XHTML related issues.

Anyone heard an "official" date for XHTML2?

Postby Pickwick » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:39 pm

These dates have a tendency to slip past me quite often. I teach at a technical college and am trying to plan for the year ahead. My suspicion is that XHTML2 will be the official standard by next June, but that’s a guess.

Any better information than that will be appreciated.
Pickwick
Rank 0 - Newcomer
Rank 0 - Newcomer
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:35 pm

Re: Anyone heard an "official" date for XHTML2?

Postby paulp575 » Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:44 pm

Pickwick wrote:These dates have a tendency to slip past me quite often. I teach at a technical college and am trying to plan for the year ahead. My suspicion is that XHTML2 will be the official standard by next June, but that’s a guess.

Any better information than that will be appreciated.


Here's the web page from W3C that most likely will let you know when XHTML 2.0 becomes the standard:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

While browsing this page, I noticed it said something about XHTML 2.0 not being backward compatible!!! Since I do not use XHTML, I'm not sure what this means or the impact of this!

Hope this helps,
paulp575
Rank II - Novice
Rank II - Novice
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Spokane WA

Postby MikeGale » Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:54 pm

XHTML 1.x transitional looks sensible to me.

Last time I checked XHTML 2, looked like it would die. I thought it was like the result of people getting carried away with "religious" ideas and contained silly decisions.
User avatar
MikeGale
Rank VI - Professional
Rank VI - Professional
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Tannhauser Gate

Postby epicure » Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:32 am

MikeGale wrote:XHTML 1.x transitional looks sensible to me.

Last time I checked XHTML 2, looked like it would die. I thought it was like the result of people getting carried away with "religious" ideas and contained silly decisions.


Proper full support for XHTML 1.x is what we need before getting cariied away with a version 2...
"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
User avatar
epicure
Rank 0 - Newcomer
Rank 0 - Newcomer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:35 am

Same Here

Postby Dwight_Stegall » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:05 am

Last time I checked XHTML 2, looked like it would die. I thought it was like the result of people getting carried away with "religious" ideas and contained silly decisions.


This exactly how I felt about XHTML 1.0 Strict. It's so strict you can't do anything fun in it. I use Transitional. I'm lost without my targets. :)
Dwight_Stegall
Rank 0 - Newcomer
Rank 0 - Newcomer
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: East Moline, Illinois

Postby MikeGale » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:26 pm

I'm sensing a direction this will all go.

I also find transitional 1 makes most sense. I have noticed a fairly large amount of content marked as 1 strict, but on analysis it is not even valid 1 transitional. It's not uncommon to find tag soup in there.

Gives you an insight into the people creating markup, doesn't it!

The W3C seems to have run out of steam and maybe even run out of fuel.

In it's place I see the HTML5/XHTML5 design. This just looks good and right, without the plain weirdness of various decisions in the other designs. I'm hoping that within a few years, 5 probably in the XHTML version will start to become dominant.

In the meantime XHTML 1 Transitional is my choice.
User avatar
MikeGale
Rank VI - Professional
Rank VI - Professional
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Tannhauser Gate


Return to HTML and XHTML

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests