5 ms·
Same here. I think the return to "do whatever you want and we try to interpret it correctly" was wrong. Code in XHTML is way more readable, maintainable and eas
by algorithms 15y ago
Same here. I think the return to "do whatever you want and we try to interpret it correctly" was wrong. Code in XHTML is way more readable, maintainable and easier to learn (IMO).
I still write my HTML5 in correct XHTML Syntax.
- damncabbage 15y agoI freaked out a little when I started seeing do-whatever-you-want creep back in when I first read diveintohtml5.org (mirrored: http://diveintohtml5.info/ http://diveintohtml5.info/). Sure, you save some (or a great deal many) characters, but at the cost of making everything that needs to work with it more complex. (Browsers are a large slice of this pie, but by no means is the only slice.) I'm going to sit back and wait for the cycle to come back around to XHTML-like correctness again.
- simonw 15y ago"I'm going to sit back and wait for the cycle to come back around to XHTML-like correctness again." Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- Karellen 15y agoI was doing that, but then found out that the XHTML empty-tag <foo /> is not valid for all elements in HTML5. See http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#start-tags http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/... (via http://mathiasbynens.be/notes/minimal-html http://mathiasbynens.be/notes/minimal-html via http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3356389 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3356389 )