Lawley's Web Design Class

Now, I have not read much about XHTML 2.0 so I cannot comment on it more then what I have read at this blog post. My only question is why is there already a XHTML 2.0. I had never even heard of XHTML before this class. I still thought that HTML 4 was it. Now I hear of this XHTML 1.0 and I read about it and I am all for it. I understand the need for standards but why do they need to change so often and fast.

Furthermore, if they do need to change this fast, then why just immediately get rid of some tags and attributes as Mark had stated. They should slowly ease them out of use so that sites that use these don't all of a sudden break. Admittedly developers with change their stuff to adopt but it cannot be done as quick as Mark is making it sound it needs to be done.

I guess what the determining factor is when the browsers decided to enforce XHTML 2.0 and stop supporting older versions of HTML.

HTML 4 was superceded by XHTML 1.0 three years ago (January 2000), and has been documented in HTML books for quite some time. (O'Reilly's "HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide" came out in August of 2000.) It's been slow to be adopted because it's harder to write than HTML.

Jeff Zeldman, one of the loudest proponents of standards, has added his voice to the discussion here:
http://www.zeldman.com/daily/0103b.shtml#skyfall

I am not questioning the facts that you state in your remark because you follow this stuff much more actively then I do.

My only exposure to this type of stuff is from the classes I have taken at RIT. I took 320 last year and the book that I purchased for that class was entitled HTML 4 For the World Wide Web. I did notice that this book has been replaced this year with a new version entitled XHTML 1.0. If XHTML superceded HTML 4 3 years ago then why did it take this long for this book to be replaced at RIT. Why was I even taught HTML 4 complaint coding standards if they were 2 years superceded by XHTML coding standards?

Furthermore, the code that I write at work is only required to be HTML 4 complaint. (That is what the DOC-TYPE says on all the pages)

I am not questioning the facts here about when XHTML came out and what books were published when, what I am questioning is why it took this long for me to here about it. Being a full time student and a part time (20 hours a week) developer I do not have ample time to spend reading about current happenings in Technology. Believe me, I would love too. But shouldn't the current coding standards be the ones that are taught and used both at school and work?

Reasonable questions. 320 is a very basic level intro to HTML, and since 4.01 is still widely used and supported--and much easier to code than XHTML--we've continued to teach it. The fact that new standards arise doesn't mean that old technologies need to be immediately abandoned.

We've been teaching the basics of XHTML in 409--which is the first real web development course in our sequence--for two years, so we're not entirely behind the curve. :-) In fact, standards are one of the first topics we cover in 409 each quarter.

The post from Mark Pilgrim that I cited was intended to illustrate the difference of opinion among professional web developers these days on the standards issues. Many respected web developers are still developing in HTML 4.01, and XHTML adoption has been a slow process. The XHTML 2.0 standard that Mark addresses is not yet implemented--it's still in the development process. So the XHTML that I've been encouraging you to write (and that Movable Type uses in its templates) is in fact the cutting edge of web technology.

Hope that helps to clarify.

Internet RIOT causes UN to sanction W3C? ;)

Mark Pilgrim, a well-known proponent of Internet standards, has done the unthinkable and it seems it has attracted quite a bit of attention. Imagine if Martin Luther were to have called a medieval press conference, torched his 95 thesis and tossed his life savings into the arms of the pope, proclaiming "Indulge This!".

Pilgrim is crying out for help. Strength in numbers! Isn't anyone else frustrated with internet standards? I don't mind them, but then again I don't even know the half of what Pilgrim is talking about. I have the feeling that a few years down the road, many of us in this website design class will be screaming and yelling for the same reasons Mark is. For now he has shocked the Blogiverse. Will his remarks spread like wildfire? They already have, it's the Internet after all. Will his remarks cause change? Now that's a different question with a different answer.

Re: Teaching HTML vs. Teaching XHTML

I would love to see RIT teaching their IMM course in XHTML. I would also love to see every Internet user adopt an XHTML-aware browser, and take measures to stay up-to-date with their technology. The first isn't really practical without the second, though. The sad truth is that those working in the field will be required to code pages that work in a wide variety of browsers. There are an alarming number of faculty and staff members here on our very own campus that still use _Netscape 4_. You should see my XHTML pages with CSS-based layout in Netscape 4.8. It looks like something that crawled out of the garbage can.

You can reduce the headaches by using a database or XML back-end, but you still need to have solid knowledge of table-based layout if you want any work. Your employer running MSIE 4 isn't going to see the logic in, "Well, it worked in my standards compliant browser..." Sad, but true. I don't consider myself a sell-out. I seperate content from layout on my personal sites. But I understand that people are going to visit my sites and not stay long because they can't see what's going on.

Re: Mark Pilgrim

Yes, I feel bad for him. He spent all that time and effort using the cite attribute, etc., just to have it dropped by the next XHTML. But it's not like the moon is going to break in half now that he isn't up to date with the latest standards. It's pretty trivial to create a script that strips the URL out of the tag and places it somewhere for safe keeping.

This was going to happen some day anyway. Sooner or later, we'll have semantic tags littering our code, and all those cite and quote attributes will be held in an appropriate, standard XML tag. It's just a matter of waiting until those standards are defined and spread through the 'net.

(Sorry for the long post..)

I posted my responce on my blog... you can use the link above or the Trackback... Thanks!

ES