MyBB Community Forums

The next generation HTML/web programming languages are being discussed and developed. What are your opinions?

XHTML2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#The_X...cification
or
HTML5 / Web Applications 1.0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Hyperte...king_Group
(I will refer Web Applications 1.0 as HTML5 from now on because it's shorter )

XHTML2 seems rather complicated compared to HTML5. It is supposed to take the web back to it's root with HTML code being semantic and CSS being presentational.
HTML5 on the other hand seems to be an extension to the HTML we all know and love. Doesn't seem much extra to it.


I like the idea of separating content and presentation with XHTML2 but I'm not sure how easy it would be to create sites like MyBB or indeed most of the sites out there. From what I've seen of XHMTL2, it seems much more geared to a informational site and not say content driven sites like youtube. But that's just my opinion from the little I've seen.
* It aims to make the web much more accessible and easy for people to find information by making HTML much more structured.
* The href and src attributes can be applied to any tag, so tables or list items can actually be links or picutres.
* There is no more alt attribute for images (hurah!). The alt text is moved to the 'inner text' of the image tag. eg <img src="image.jpg">Some alt text</img>. Makes sense to me?
I first saw XForms and nearly cried. It seems so much complex to implement a standard form! But some of the examples I've seen are quite cool. You can preform lots of validation on the client side so there is less information passed between the user and the server. But you obviously still need to preform validation on the server, so I wonder how useful this actually is... The forms do seem rather complicated to implement...

HTML5 on the other hand just seems some extra features. Nothing to write home about perhaps?


I like XForms but XHTML2 seems rather complicated. Much longer to knock up a site IMHO. Might have to start using WYSIWYG which I don't like doing because the code is usually screwy. But if there is a such strict format to XHTML2, WYSIWYG can't really mess it up?
We all know IE7 (and other browsers) have trouble with HTML and CSS as it currently standards anyway, so introducing a vastly different web standard might not be a good idea?

XHTML 2.0 seems rather interesting actually. I like how you can use hyperlinks on any element, would make the source a lot cleaner.
You just have to get into it. I like changes. HTML 5 will probably be for the ones that doesn't like changes. But I for one like how it evolves. Smaller code is always better.

Well the main point of XHTML was to make it like XML, i.e. semantic and following standards which can later be interpreted by content aggregators and mobile browsers in accurate manners, without using too much resources. They're heading into the right direction and that's good! But things like XForms actually seem like bloatness to me.

I don't like any of their XForms, XEvents or X(whatever). XHTML should be what it was meant to be for, HTML following XML rules of standards and consistency of well-formed tags which can be read and interpreted by following a set of standards. Anyways, I won't be using them, maybe in 10 years from now.

For any of this standardization to work, companies *cough*microsoft*cough* are going to have to agree to use the standards strictly and not just pick and choose what they want.

It's almost a shame that (X)HTML doesn't have to be compiled before being but on the Internet, at least then the people developing the sites would be forced to use strict standards, wouldn't stop the browser standard mis-match problem though.

To be honest, me saying that is a little contradicting, because if anyone checks my site through a validator, it will fail miserably

"The problem is choice. If you eliminate choice, you eliminate the problem"

XHTML 2.0 is the way to go.

Honestly, HTML is so Web 1.0...