XHTML vs HTML: Round 2
When XHTML was first released nearly everyone, myself included, rushed headlong into it. Countless websites were shredded, old HTML code was stripped out and rebuilt using XHTML syntax under the watchful eye of the W3 validators. When it was over, the dust settled and, for a time, everyone tried to pretend HTML no longer existed — scorning those who had the audacity to still use HTML.
Time passed. People began realizing that XHTML wasn’t the save all and be all that it was supposed to be: some popular browsers (cough: IE) couldn’t even properly render its content type of application/xhtml+xml, so developers were stuck calling it XHTML and pretending that it was truly XHTML+XML, but they were really just dishing out HTML that was properly formatted.
This is not to say that the “XHTML rush” ™ was bad or that it didn’t advance technologies and the semantic nature of programming: it, with the help of CSS, helped to banish the hack and slash methods that were intrinsic in the 1990’s because people started realizing what each tag really meant and peer pressure abounded.
