There's a long road ahead till browsers actually support XHTML 2.0 — even decently compliant engines such as Gecko aren't nearly there yet.
XHTML 1.1 Strict is what you should aim for at the moment, if you are serious about compliance. It's problematic for us though, for reasons I state elsewhere in the thread.
Makeshifts last the longest.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
IIRC, xhtml 2 removes everything that was marked depreciated in HTML 4.01, which is a major huge change, both in as much as it changes a lot, and in as much as it seemed, prior to that, to support everything that had ever been in common use.
Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).
| [reply] |
I'm no expert, but theorbittwo's assessment sounds about right to me. All in all there are some pretty weighty changes.
For example, check out this little gem from the xhtml FAQ...
Is <img> being replaced by <object> in XHTML2?
No. <img> is being replaced in XHTML2, but by something else ...
What XHTML2 does is say that all images are equivalent to some piece of content; it does this by allowing you to put a src attribute on any element at all. What this says is: if the image is available, and the browser can process it, use it, otherwise use the content of the element. For instance:...
Take a look at the elements in xhtml2 to get a sense of how much has changed.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
