Is XHTML 2.0 already an Anachronism?
>The why define XHTML 2.0 at all? Why not just use raw XML?
Great question. Did the (X)HTML WG seriously ask it?
If backwards compatibility is explicitly not an aim for XHTML 2.0 then what reasons are there for persevering with further development of HTML?
Of course, at least some of the XLink vs HLink debate hinges on the assumption that further development of (X)HTML is a good thing.
Similarly, the XHTML-centricity of XForms is implicitly dependant on XHTML being worth further development. Why not better aim for a truly generic XML forms standard?
I would be interested in your views on why you consider that XHTML is worth persevering with.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format