Comments on: 173. UX

By: Webonomist

Webonomist — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:18:35 +0000

I need some help understanding the XHTML 2.0 / HTML 5 issue.

I thought that part of the newer XML specification was applied to old HTML to tighten up a loose coding standard - self closing tags, no minimizing attributes etc. This is what we know as XHTML and I though had superseded HTML.

So, why are we continuing to develop HTML to a 5.0 standard? Why not wrap the new features into XHTML 2.0 and have one specification to support going forward? What am I missing here!

By: cssbit

cssbit — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:33:34 +0000

wonderful & very useful podcast thank for sharing

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:03:53 +0000

Just a note to say that, in most cases, changing over to HTML5 will be a case of swapping DOCTYPE. At least for the time being.

HTML5 supports both HTML4 and XHTML1.0 style syntax. So things like self-closing IMG tags are valid. It's likely that Headscape's snippets library will be completely compatible with HTML5 without any real re-working.

That said, until the browsers have support for some of the NEW features and elements in HTML5, then there's no real advantage over XHTML at the moment. XHTML 1.0 is still a good choice for the time being. HTML4.01 is equally a good choice. No cause for panic.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:55 +0000

I’ve read a couple of articles about password masking in the last couple of weeks and I continually find myself stunned at how insane I find the idea of dropping passowrd masking.

So much so, I wrote an article about it. http://minute44.com/archives/674