

Comments on Comments on Zeldman's XHTML WTF - blasdel
http://stoneship.org/journal/2009/comments-on-comments-on-zeldmans-xhtml-wtf/

======
ZeroGravitas
To be fair, while the people he quotes are nutters, the overall thread isn't
totally terrible.

Most of the complaints seem to be from people with some kind of OCD-style
distaste for non-XML tag languages because they view them as sloppy, no matter
how well specified.

~~~
dasil003
I've been following Zeldman for 10 years now, and I got on the standards
bandwagon early (IE4/NS4-era). It's funny because the whole standards movement
was born out the "Best viewed in browser X", font tag soup, 10-level deep
table insanity of the late 90s.

However some time around 2002, 2003 what started out as a very pragmatic
movement, slowly started to become a religion for a small set of web designers
who became increasingly focused on the minutiae of markup. To these people
XHTML 2.0 has some sort of mythic status as prophet and savior of the web.

Actually XHTML 2.0 is pretty cool, but with no vendor buy-in it's been dead in
the water for forever... a w3c recommendation does not a standard make. Having
been through the whole standards gauntlet before, I really don't give two rats
titties about XHTML2 or HTML5, although I'd be happy for either to be viable
before I retire from web development. I'm not gonna hold my breath though, too
much work right _now_.

------
bjclark
Is a comment here a Comment on Comments on Comments on Zeldman's XHTML WTF?

