• polakkenak@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.