How factual is this statement?
The W3C also remade HTML as XHTML, releasing version 1.0 (based on HTML 4.01) in 2000 and XHTML 1.1 (based on XHTML 1.0 Strict) in 2001, and proceeded to work on XHTML 2.0 (based on what the experts thought the web needed). XHTML 2.0 was pretty much booed off the web, and the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group started updating the venerable language again in 2004. As of this writing, HTML5 remains a work in progress.
This seems like a broad and hard to verify statement. If you're interested in accuracy, then it may be safer to stick to what you can backup with citations.Quote:
XHTML 2.0 was pretty much booed off the web
"Apple, Mozilla and Opera were becoming increasingly concerned about the W3Cís direction with XHTML, lack of interest in HTML, and apparent disregard for the needs of real-world authors."[*]
Also seems largely correct.Quote:
the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group started updating the venerable language again in 2004. As of this writing, HTML5 remains a work in progress.
Sorry, but every post on XHTML 2.0 that I read back them seemed VERY negative towards the language. That, and I wanted to have a rather casual, light-hearted tone to the book.
I dropped XHTML some while back and use HTML4.01 Transitional until HTML5 has all the bugs out of and is finalized (whenever that may be:rolleyes:).
The problem with any of them is that developers try to stretch stuff beyond the browser's parameters and have to code in all kinds of extra stuff. CSS drop downs are a good example of this.
It's really. apply the KISS Rule to whatever you do and stop trying to second guess the browser.
I don't know of anyone who likes Flash, so HTML5's animation thing will be a very welcome relief as long as they make it so the dangers associated with Flash cannot be implemented in any way, shape or form.
Google: html5 animationsQuote:
What's an HTML5 animation?
There's quite a lot about it.
HTML5's canvas is part of HTML5, so no plugin is needed. This takes it away from a single software developer (Adobe) and opens up stuff. If it is anything like Flash in its results, then we should be seeing graphics/text combined with movies and sound.
Initially there will be the usual playing around with stuff that for all intensive purposes is totally useless (moving an object around inside a box for no other reason than to move it), but can be an inspiration for more practical visual implementation like creating an object and expanding it into a movie etc-etc.
We shall just have to wait and see how it all grows. The possibilities are there and now it's time for the artists to get to grips with packages and concepts to produce some exciting visuals.
Rewrote that paragraph.
The W3C also remade HTML as XHTML, releasing version 1.0 (based on HTML 4.01) in 2000 and XHTML 1.1 (based on XHTML 1.0 Strict) in 2001, and proceeded to work on XHTML 2.0 (based on what the experts thought the web should use). XHTML 2.0 was never really adopted. To begin with, it had very little to do with classic HTML and was not backwards-compatible, which meant that it was simply another language that browsers had to support—even though it technically did the same thing as HTML. Developers thought that the W3C had lost touch with developers and the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group was created outside of the W3C to start updating the venerable language again in 2004. As of this writing, HTML5 remains a work in progress.
I ran across this :)
Well, that's encouraging for me. Maybe there will be a use for HTML 4.01 for a while yet.