> Well an XHTML parser (and serializer) is a lot simpler
replyPerhaps, but a combined html and xhtml parser is more complex than just a html parser. Since html already is entrenched, xhtml would be in addition to html, not instead of.
The main one is that even a slightly broken XHTML document will fail to render. HTML is much more forgiving.
replyWith the benefit of hindsight, if the web had been that way from the beginning, I think we would have been better off. The moment you tested your content in any browser, you'd immediately see if it was broken.
replyBut it wasn't something that could get introduced later, after all the broken content that already existed.
With all respect - the opposite is true. The web succeeded because HTML and HTTP are easy standards easily writable by humans with text editors. HTML was writable by non-programmers.
replyI don't think "parsed strictly" makes something hard; on the contrary, I think it's helpful to make something easy. Clear feedback, easy to test.
replyBut then, I've always preferred strongly typed over stringly typed.
This imagines HTML as code and not markup.
replyThe reason HTML and markdown are more widely adopted than latex is because the former are more forgiving.
I am thinking of it as markup. I stand by the point: I think "forgiving" is not a feature in parsing; it's a bug.
replyThat's not obviously so. The adoption of JS wasn't particularly hindered by the fact that users have to match their brackets and generally avoid syntax errors.
replyYeah, I think SGML HTML as the first pass was a mistake. All my early websites were XHTML until people called them "bad"...
reply