> > 'Standards are bullshit. XHTML is a crock. The W3C is irrelevant.' > >
rocks the boat again with an attack on the W3C for deprecating XHTML tags that
make his site work. The development of XHTML has seen the W3C
slowly chip away at the specification of HTML, and for good
reason: to make the Web leaner, faster and easier to build.
Because the W3C are dropping a handful of tags like
and, Mark seems to believe that they are
dropping semantic mark-up.
The Dive Into series of sites constitute some of the most informationally rich and well put together web sites I have ever seen. Marks vast knowledge of web development has won him respect from many web designers who read and respond to his posts on a daily basis. However, in this case, I find myself disagreeing with his self-important stance on XHTML 2 and the future of the web. Surely developing for the web is about excepting that it is in a constant state of transition towards something better and part of the challenge is not to be too reliant on certain technologies.
On browsing through the latest
working draft of the XHTML 2 specification, there seems
to be some startling omissions like the `
tag as well as
the suggestion that the
tags will be deprecated. If this is the case, then the
vast majority of web sites are going to look pretty weird
when XHTML 2 is implemented. But it doesn't work like that,
does it? Browsers will begin to support XHTML 2 but at the
same time continue to support XHTML 1 and HTML 4. Surely
there will be a XHTML 2 transitional doctype allowing it to
be valid with the odd
or` tag included.
Just because XHTML 2 presents a big change doesn’t mean that
web sites are going to stop working tomorrow; it’s aim is to
make the Web more meaningful and more importantly, to make it
easier for everyone to create.
*[W3C]: World Wide Web Consortium *[XHTML]: (X)tensible Hypertext Mark-up Language