HTML vs XHTML Debate
This cluster discusses the history, design philosophy, and evolution of HTML compared to XHTML, debating its forgiving nature versus strict XML syntax, why XHTML failed, and suitability for human vs machine generation.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Well, html had it sorted out three decades ago...
At this point HTML is quickly turning into not a markup language
I will be that guy: HTML is not XML. People wanted to write malformed html so xhtml never went anywhere.
The evolution of HTML and CSS clearly shows that HTML isn't suited to describe a interface without massive hints to a rendering engine to manipulate it
HTML is ironically very nice as a standard, even if broken by design. Think about crawlers for instance, which would not be possible without HTML.
HTML was meant to be written by humans.
HTML is anything but general purpose.
Only for HTML, not for CSS & JS. JS is handled by TC39 and CSS is still at W3C.
HTML was not really meant to be generated by humans. Just like XML, it's supposed to be machine readable first and foremost.
For better or worse XHTML, also known as the XML serialization of HTML, cannot represent all valid HTML documents. HTML and XML are different languages with vastly different rules, and it's fairly moot now to consider replacing them.Many of the "problems" with HTML are still handled adequately simply by using a spec-compliant parser instead of regular expressions, string functions, or attempting to parse HTML with XML parsers like PHP's `DOMDocument`.Every major browser