Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
- HTML vs XML
Re: HTML vs XML
Where have you been? If I wasn't feeling charitable I'd post a
grump-o-gram and just tell you to Google it.
Apples and Oranges.
XML was '97s replacement for SGML, because SGML was too difficult to
understand and there were no accessible tools to use it (for
"practical" values of people, projects and budget). By '99 there were
usable free XML tools deployed onto many, and deployable onto most,
desktops. Nowadays you can find competent XML developers almost
anywhere, but SGML knowledge is still commercially negligible. XML
_has_ won (sorry Arjun)
XML is not a HTML substitute. XHTML (HTML in XML) is not yet a HTML
substitute, and may not ever be so (if you believe some people).
So ignore XML for your web authoring. Stick with HTML 4.01 Strict.
If anyone pokes you and says "use XML for this other job", then that is
time to start taking notice. Then try Wikipedia etc. for basic starter
Re: HTML vs XML
I think you meant to ask for a comparison of HTML and XHTML. If so,
the main difference now is that XHTML tags have been changed slightly
so that they conform more closely to the format required for an XML
I chose to write my web site using XHTML because W3C told me it was
the modern thing to do <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ . Since then I have
discovered that my decision was controversial
<http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml . I don't regret my decision but
you can justify staying with HTML by using Ian Hickson's arguments.
- » Please could someone take a look at this website...
- — Next thread in » HTML Markup Language