In defense of web developers

Comments

1. 
   12 Jul 2009 ~ 6:09pm chrisWhite I'm not entirely sure I understand the argument having no real deep knowledge of XHTML or HTML 5. Is HTML 5 not based on strict standards that XHTML is build upon? If the W3C gives HTML 5 it's stamp of approval how is that functionally different from them creating the standard themselves? Are they known to pull their punches when approving other people's standards?
2. 
   12 Jul 2009 ~ 9:16pm Linc HTML 5 is a product of the W3C as well (in cooperation with the WHATWG). Really, I'm not sure there's much logical argument to understand, but the gist is that some people have said that XHTML was bull all along and a completely unnecessary or even harmful tangent away from HTML. I think it's rather silly myself, all the more so since I continue to code everything I do in XHTML.
3. 
   12 Jul 2009 ~ 10:17pm chrisWhite I never got that good at XHTML but it seemed like it was pretty similar to strict HTML standards except for the doctype, are there large fundamental differences?
4. 
   14 Jul 2009 ~ 12:10pm Linc Not really; the point is simply that XHTML is supposed to be fully XML-compliant, so all tags get closed, even if there's not a separate close tag, so we do this:
   [html]<img src="" />[/html] not [html]<img src="">[/html]
   And it's case-sensitive (all lower case). As Zeldman says, it's really just a nice platform for promoting better web standards and quality code.
5. 
   14 Jul 2009 ~ 4:01pm chrisWhite Hmm, that's right, I do remember doing that but I'd forgotten that was just normal HTML these days.
6. 
   15 Jul 2009 ~ 3:13pm MiracleManS

   Lincoln wrote:

   <a href="http://www.zeldman.com/2009/07/07/in-defense-of-web-developers/">Zeldman responds</a> to the "XHTML is bullshit" crowd that has been vocal since the <a href="http://icrontic.com/ticker/xhtml-2-dead">announced demise</a> of XHTML 2.
   
   View Ticker

   
   I thought anyone with a brain was using XHTML at this point until 5 is ready...