Thread: Html / xhtml

Who created HTML and XHTML?

HTML was first thought up around 1980 by Tim Berners-Lee, although a fully formed basic version wasn't around until 1990 when it was accepted by his employer CERN.

From there it has grown and been driven by the community who use it, web developers, and particularily by the world wide web consortium (set up in 1996)

The latest version of HTML (4.01) was published as a recommendation back in 1999, and so we all partied like it was that year.

We are awaiting HTML5, which is currently in working draft (since 2008).

xHTML, grew out of HTML and was published as a recommendation in 2000. We still only have version 1.0. Version 2.0, whilst a working draft, will not continue to be developed. Instead, we should have xHTML5; which is being developed alongside HTML5.

Having said that, I heard somewhere that Al Gore invented it????

Having said that, I heard somewhere that Al Gore invented it????

Originally Posted by WelshStew

I always liked his comeback

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]The day I made that statement, about the inventing the internet, I was tired because I'd been up all night inventing the Camcorder.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Originally Posted by Al Gore

Check out w3.org

Regarding what has been written.

XHTML is HTML 4.0 rewritten in xml. Basically, professional's decided that HTML was a bit of a tag soup and they wanted to create valid documents which made sense. This means that instead of this.

Code:

<div CLASS=content>
  <P>Some text
</div>

becomes this.

Code:

<div class="content">
  <p>Some text</p>
</div>

Visually the 2 above snippets should display the same. When it comes to reading and maintaining code the second is far nicer.

However, XHTML was never proper supported by IE which led to some problems.

This brings us closer to today. XHTML2 isn't the next version of XHTML. It is basically a new mark up language with lots of new tags. Because of this, it became somewhat unpopular within the development community. Mark up needs to be improved but it doesn't need to be completely rewritten from scratch. With this in mind the current version of XHTML2 was abandoned.

XHTML5 doesn't really exist, its like DHMTL, just a tag for existing technologies. HTML5 is case insensitive and you do not need to close tags. Another tag soup. If you add a line telling the browser to render this page as XML you are forced into lower case + closing tags. Thus you effectively have 'XHTML5'. HTML 5 rendered as XML.

If you add a line telling the browser to render this page as XML you are forced into lower case + closing tags. Thus you effectively have 'XHTML5'. HTML 5 rendered as XML.

Originally Posted by Jason

I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out. [need to read more, but no time]

Visually the 2 above snippets should display the same. When it comes to reading and maintaining code the second is far nicer.

Originally Posted by Jason

Both snippets are valid HTML. However, the W3C validator does not "enforce" the latter (neater) syntax for HTML, whereas it does "enforce" it for XHTML. This is a purely formal artefact; if you want, you can write HTML and validate it against an XHTML grammar (validating against a custom DTD).

However, XHTML was never proper supported by IE which led to some problems.

Such as (almost) nobody using it.

XHTML5 doesn't really exist, its like DHMTL, just a tag for existing technologies.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain any respect in which XHTML 5 is "less real" or "less XML" than XHTML 1 or 2? They seem equally real to me.

However, XHTML was never proper supported by IE which led to some problems.

Originally Posted by Jason

A quick note on that: Quite a lot of people say this, and its true, but rather misleading. IE does not support XML, the base of XHTML. However, if you serve the XHTML document with the MIME type text/html rather than the correct text/xml, IE is absolutely fine with it. (In other words, you need to trick it into thinking its HTML)

Since most people aren't going to bother with using the correct MIME type of text/xml, but rather just leave it on the default text/html, XHTML doesn't cause any issues with IE for the most part.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain any respect in which XHTML 5 is "less real" or "less XML" than XHTML 1 or 2? They seem equally real to me.

Originally Posted by Mike Hopley

Well, XHTML5 isn't a programming language. Just like DHTML isn't a programming language. DHTML is a term used to describe programming with Javascript and HTML. You cannot learn DHTML, its just a - I don't know the word... tag? - to describe the combination of 2 technologies.

Its like XHTML5. It doesn't exist. You can learn HTML5 and you can learn XML. XHTML5 isn't a separate language in itself. Its just the product of putting HTML5 and xml together.

Its like XHTML5. It doesn't exist. You can learn HTML5 and you can learn XML. XHTML5 isn't a separate language in itself. Its just the product of putting HTML5 and xml together.

Originally Posted by Jason

I don't see how this differs from XHTML 1.0, for example. The only difference is that XHTML 1.0 got a specification of its own, whereas the XHTML 5 spec is combined with the HTML 5 spec. That's just a difference of documentation.

If you're talking about syntax, then yes, XHTML 5 and HTML 5 are nearly identical. However, the same is true of HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0.

Define "separate language". :p

*sigh*

The difference is exactly what you said.

XHTML1, HTML4/5 all have specifications from W3C. 'XHTML5' is simply using HTML5 while parsing it with xml and the xml syntax.

XHTML1's syntax is similar to that of HTML but there are some minor differences.

'XHTML5' and HTML5 syntax are identical because they are the same formulation of HTML. Only difference is how the document is being parsed.

All I am trying to say is that XHTML5 shouldn't be mistaken for a new version or iteration of XHTML. It is simply a buzzword used to describe the use of HTML5 + xml together.

For example, on your CV, you would put down HTML5 as something you know. Not XHTML5.