Abhishek Reddy — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:23:02 +0000

andy206uk;210516 wrote: I was under the impression that the web was moving towards XML and that XHTML was just an easy way for people to begin the transition (with people later integrating other forms of XML within their sites such as MathML(?) and Xforms as well as custom DTD's and XSS...

Or maybe I was too busy flicking ink at the back of class when they explained it all...

That was the grand plan, yeah. I find it somewhat ironic how XHTML1 is a transition to XHTML 2 which is a transition to XML, XHTML1 Transitional is a transition to XHTML1, and now HTML5 is supposed to be a transition to XHTML.

Abhishek Reddy — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:19:07 +0000

Neutron2k;210513 wrote: The reason people are not transitioning to it is because they either don't know about it, or because they are not phasing out support for html4.

If they phased out html4 in the new browser releases, then people would be forced to make the transition. Obviously to do this they would have to have a years announcement so that everyone got the idea and had time to update their sites.

I think that's what they're trying to do with this new version. If they phased HTML4 out, a lot of people will be left in the lurch. The problem then would be how to deal with those who stick with an obsolete standard for the sake of convenience.

And since HTML4 is not going to change towards XHTML, there is no way to gently coerce HTML4 users forward. The idea with HTML5, I suspect, is to guarantee compatibility, in the relative short term, for HTML4 code but with the condition that it will change in the future.

Well, that's how I interpret their motives for HTML5, anyway.

andy206uk — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:05:56 +0000

Neutron2k;210513 wrote: If they phased out html4 in the new browser releases, then people would be forced to make the transition. Obviously to do this they would have to have a years announcement so that everyone got the idea and had time to update their sites.

Not gonna happen. There are sites out there now that are no longer maintained and over 10 years old but quite often still useful. Are you saying that they should be hidden from users because they're old? That really defeats the point of the internet.

I think the best solution would be if browsers had some kind of warning on older sites. i.e. -

You are viewing a website that utilises old and out of date coding - this may cause problems with the way the site displays (possibly phrased in a more usercentric way though).

I'm sure having that at the top of their pages would encourage a lot of site owners to buck up and update their sites, but it's a lot of work.

HTML as it stands shouldn't be developed any further. I was under the impression that the web was moving towards XML and that XHTML was just an easy way for people to begin the transition (with people later integrating other forms of XML within their sites such as MathML(?) and Xforms as well as custom DTD's and XSS...

Or maybe I was too busy flicking ink at the back of class when they explained it all...

Neutron2k — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:43:39 +0000

the problem with them developing a 5 version of html is that they are once again opening the gap for bad development. The whole point in xhtml was to force developers to use some type of standardised code. The reason people are not transitioning to it is because they either don't know about it, or because they are not phasing out support for html4.

If they phased out html4 in the new browser releases, then people would be forced to make the transition. Obviously to do this they would have to have a years announcement so that everyone got the idea and had time to update their sites.

at the end of the day theres no real reason for people not to make the switch. Its essentialy the same markup but with a few rules.

Megan — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:59:34 +0000

Expression is very standards compliant, yes. As far as I can tell, anyway. Here's a thread with my review. I've heard that they will be discontinuing Front Page once Expression is launched. MS is at least talking the talk about standards now. I don't believe that they actually embrace them (maybe some of the individual developers do), but at least they are feeling the pressure to comply. So standards advocates are having an impact.

andy206uk — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:26:52 +0000

Busy;210364 wrote: Microsoft (for example) can make a difference, am sure most of you have had windows for years, some maybe since DOS days, does anyone ever remember an update for frontpage (apart from the windows version changes). What about Publisher, Word etc, have they ever been connected to a validator, HTML Tidy type thing?

I heard rumours that they've made efforts for Expression (the replacement for FrontPage) to be more standards compliant but it wouldn't surprise me if it's not

Busy — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:25:31 +0000

The internet is run in part (bill gates etc) by some of the biggest corporations in the world, yet they work opposite to their normal business practices.

Look at the products they make, bikes, gaming machines, cars, computers ... nothing is backwards compatible - yet they are world wide.

They can't use their normal business practice because the internet moves to fast, with to many directions.
The W3C have to stand up and make a stand with these companies or they will be ignored even more.

Microsoft (for example) can make a difference, am sure most of you have had windows for years, some maybe since DOS days, does anyone ever remember an update for frontpage (apart from the windows version changes). What about Publisher, Word etc, have they ever been connected to a validator, HTML Tidy type thing?

JeevesBond — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:40:59 +0000

andy206uk wrote: I almost think we need to create a second web. One that supports only standards compliant XHTML, XML etc (where pages fail if they don't validate to their doctype)

Perhaps we should fork Firefox, rip out all the code that allows invalid code to work and replace it with a big fat: 'Sorry can't render this page 'cos it's broken, and that' message.

Ohhh, if only I had the time!

andy206uk wrote: Lets face it - with the way the web is at the moment, there will always be bad websites out there, and theres nothing anyone can do about it.

Yep, agreed. Browser writers will never stop supporting broken sites because many sites would stop working in their browser, and site makers won't stop making crap code because the browser writers still allow their sites to work.

andy206uk — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:18:04 +0000

It's a shame that the web has to stay backwards compatible. If it weren't for all the old sites browser vendors could stop supporting anything using older versions of HTML which would force people to create standards compliant code.

I almost think we need to create a second web. One that supports only standards compliant XHTML, XML etc (where pages fail if they don't validate to their doctype) and perhaps makes use of a modern replacement for email that loses all of the inherent problems within the way email works at the moment (spam, spoofing etc - although this is an altogether different topic).

Lets face it - with the way the web is at the moment, there will always be bad websites out there, and theres nothing anyone can do about it.

JeevesBond — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:10:50 +0000

DDoSAttack wrote: Busy has an excellent point in that someone needs to MAKE the browser creators follow certain standards. Right now all it is is basically "please follow this set of standards and if you don't well that is ok because we will make it so that things more or less work anyway"

Well this is a good point, but the W3C is made up of the companies that are part of it, they all have a say in how the standards are written so should have no reason to deviate from what is published.

I think the problems we are seeing are indicitive of the Microsoft 'embrace, extend, extinguish' policy toward things that threaten them. As Abhi pointed-out, there are deviations from the standard to achieve 'vendor lockin'. Like the analogies Abhi.

You say this is a W3C problem, but how can they enforce the standards? It's not as if they can send a bunch of mafia gorillas up to Redmond to throw chairs at Steve Ballmer. When standards are created they're certainly not a binding contract, if they were I don't think many of the companies signed up to the W3C today would be partaking.

As for continuing to support HTML, I think this is a step backwards. Certainly most sites aren't using xhtml yet, but more and more people are starting to understand. Using xhtml standards based coding has a good effect upon Google rankings (less code more content), designs are easier and faster to code using xhtml standards. The benefits are there, this just seems to be ratifying those people who're stuck in 1998!