sitesupport — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:25:01 +0000

Verry interesting, thanks for the link.

Megan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:05:32 +0000

Yes, and it's a bit of a strange reason why they're doing this - because people haven't adopted xHTML like they expected. Well, that has something to do with IE not supporting it properly!

I thought they were developing a paraellel version of xHTML with the same additions but I haven't heard much about that recently so I'm not sure what's going on.

And yes, IE isn't involved in the WhatWG. Support from them is probably a long way off unless they deliver on promises to release new versions more often and support standards better. But interesting to see what the future holds anyway (or, what the future may hold at some point in the distant future....)

andy206uk — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:45:09 +0000

Sounds interesting, but what happened to XHTML? I thought we were supposed to be moving away from HTML and over to XHTML ? At least, that's what all the standards advocates were saying a couple of years back...

Damn, I hate this industry some times

Busy — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:26:00 +0000

Doesn't it worry you there is no mention of IE support in there

Abhishek Reddy — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:27:42 +0000

Great link, thanks.

I'm warming to the idea of HTML 5, mainly because browser support is likely to be half decent. Most of the new elements are steps in the right direction as well -- particularly datagrid, figure, aside, menu, video and audio. The smaller elements like mark and time are sugar but not that interesting. I'm still ambivalent about the structural elements -- I don't think they're bad but I'm not convinced of the benefit.