Code Forums - View Single Post

Rie · 03-07-2003, 07:25 PM

I just finished reading the working draft at w3 (http://www.w3.org) for XHTML 2.0, and I believe they have totally lost their minds. First off, being incompatible with older versions is drastic upon its own, but if there was a reason for it, I wouldn't mind. There isn't one. 99% of the changes involve getting rid of empty elements, and just slapping off some useful attributes such as "style" in favor of a all-stylesheet document. In other words, this means that in the name of "compatibility", tons of scripts, programs, ect. will have to be re-designed to setup with XHTML 2.0. I'm still putting my hopes in the proposed "HTML 5.0" made by some people, which gets back to the day-by-day design functions of HTML. While I support where w3 is going with this, I just think it's too fast, too soon.

documents - - -

working draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xhtml2-20030131/)

03-07-2003, 07:25 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rie Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Heaven's Back Alley Posts: 6	Xhtml 2.0 I just finished reading the working draft at w3 (http://www.w3.org) for XHTML 2.0, and I believe they have totally lost their minds. First off, being incompatible with older versions is drastic upon its own, but if there was a reason for it, I wouldn't mind. There isn't one. 99% of the changes involve getting rid of empty elements, and just slapping off some useful attributes such as "style" in favor of a all-stylesheet document. In other words, this means that in the name of "compatibility", tons of scripts, programs, ect. will have to be re-designed to setup with XHTML 2.0. I'm still putting my hopes in the proposed "HTML 5.0" made by some people, which gets back to the day-by-day design functions of HTML. While I support where w3 is going with this, I just think it's too fast, too soon. documents - - - working draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xhtml2-20030131/)