XHTML 3.0 - anyone using it yet?

how up to date are you?

[ergophobe]

Not sure this is the appropriate forum for posting something of this nature, but I wonder whether anyone here coding with the new XHTML 3.0 standard [cs.tut.fi] put out by the W2C?

I have seen many sites using hacks that emulate XHTML 3, but it seems to me that few WebmasterWorld readers are this advanced.

The spec is brief, but makes for interesting and enlightening reading.

Enjoy!

Tom

[pageoneresults]

That was actually an April Fools joke...

http*//www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/more.html

I sure hope no one is using anything put out by the W2C. ;)

P.S. We haven't made it to XHTML 2.0 yet...

While XHTML 1.0 has been around for a few years, it's important to understand that 2.0 is not simply the "next" version. XHTML 2.0 is a complete rework of the standard; it's not backward-compatible with 1.0, and developers will find dozens of new abilities - many applying to traditional applications as well as mobile/wireless.

[edited by: pageoneresults at 4:59 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2004]

[Gibble]

Of course I'll serve them only to browsers that accept the relevant MIME type in the Accept headers: "aprilcation/xhtml+xml".

[ergophobe]

That was actually an April Fools joke...

It's not April.

[pageoneresults]

It was then...

Date of creation: 2003-04-01

[ergophobe]

Okay, okay. I fess up. I knew it was an April Fool's joke. Wanted to give everyone a laugh.

That's why I said that few WebmasterWorld users were "advanced" enough to use XHTML 3, but that I had seen many websites that strongly resembled the coding style.

Korpela's website, however, is one of the best sources for info on character encoding, which is how I came across this.

Tom

[coopster]

Sure, sure. ;)

I'm advanced enough, I just choose not to, so there.

[mipapage]

I was like 'What has that ski bum been smokin!' ;-]

is one of the best sources for info on character encoding

Right, Still have to look into that...

Nice one ergophobe!

[ergophobe]

Now I see all the lurkers chiming in once they're *sure* it's a joke.

Coopster and Mipa, time for you to tell the truth. You were thinking "Wow, I didn't know there was such a thing as XHTML 3! I don't want to admit it here though."

Did you read the "spec" though? I thought it was pretty creative.

:-)
Tom

[grahamstewart]

I had seen many websites that strongly resembled the coding style

Yeah I can think of one [webmasterworld.com] - check out the innovative use of the all new font tag :)

[coopster]

LOL on that one! Carefully though, as I'm sure we all have markup we would like to go back and revise. In due time, in due time...

And actually, ergophobe, I was thinking..."oh man, I can't believe ergophobe bought into that...c'mon, he has to know it's a joke...doesn't he?" So, I shied away not wanting to be the guy that made you blush with embarrassment for being had. Man, am I naieve. Guess I should have taken my smart aleck jabs right away :)

[Ocoth]

Anyone who actually thought anything to do with XHTML 3.0 mustn't have been to W3C lately. The latest actual recommendation is XHTML 1.1, but not many site are using that. The most common form of XHTML in use are the XHTML 1.0 types.

[mipapage]

Ouch, caught in the act! ;-]

[ergophobe]

Guess I should have taken my smart aleck jabs right away :)

Most definitely!

[g1smd]

That site from Jukka Korpela pops up in a lot of internet discussions these days.

It was also one of the earliest sites on the net metioning the ISO 8601 date format.