• polakkenak@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    il y a 1 an

    The thing with XHTML is that even a minor problem will make the page refuse to render and display a full page error message instead of any content. Having the browser guess how to handle the malformed HTML isn’t ideal, but it’s a lot better than showing nothing at all.

    • atheken@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      il y a 1 an

      As an end result, maybe. But it also means that you get specific feedback on how to properly author it correctly and fix it before pushing it live.

      IDK, I lived through that whole era, and I’d attribute it more to the fact that HTML is easy enough to author in any text editor by complete novices. XHTML demands a hell of a lot more knowledge of how XML works, and what is valid (and, more keystrokes). The barrier to entry for XHTML is much, much, higher.

      • bitcrafter@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        il y a 1 an

        I completely agree with that assessment, but what is weird to me is that most people use frameworks so they don’t actually touch any of the markup themselves.

        • atheken@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          il y a 1 an

          I don’t know if it’s “most people,” but I agree, there is no excuse for frameworks producing sloppy output - that being said, XHTML is a bit more chatty than HTML(5), so there is some minor benefit to not using the less verbose standard.