Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

XHTML Club

xhtml.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: XHTML Club

#111

Post by [deleted] »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #107
throwaway150 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't move the goalposts and take this as an opportunity to learn from the feedback you are receiving from several people here. Perhaps learn to be more accurate in what you say and if you fail to be accurate (which happens to everyone, we are all humans), admit it gracefully, and move on. Your original claim was: > There is no HTML5. Clearly false because it exists: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introductio…

The poster I replied to did. You're like the other guy who jumped into a thread without following the context. Technical people know better than to do that. But I'm not here to teach people how to follow a thread. Please don't reply. I'm done here

[deleted]

Re: XHTML Club

#112

Post by [deleted] »

jraph wrote: post #2

In the linked article: > you should master the HTML programming¹ language The footnote reads: > 1. This is a common debate - but for simplicity sake I'm just calling it this. It's not really a debate, HTML is a markup language [1], not a programming language: you annotate a document with its structure and its formatting. You are not really programming when you write HTML (the markup is not procedural) (and this is no…

[deleted]

Re: XHTML Club

#113

Post by firefoxd »

Just tested my xhtml website on validator.w3.org , the errors I see triggered me:

> Trailing slash on void elements has no effect and interacts badly with unquoted attribute values.

Unquoted attribute values? So help me I don't see you using unquoted attribute values.

Re: XHTML Club

#114

Post by [deleted] »

hannob wrote: post #13

I used to create a number of simple web pages in XHTML back in the days when we believed XHTML was the future. Recently, while going through and restructuring some of my old "online stuff", I learned that XHTML really isn't in a state that I'd want to use it any more: * XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 are officially deprecated by the W3C. * XHTML5 exists as a variant of HTML5. However, it's very clear that it's absolutely not a pr…

[deleted]

Re: XHTML Club

#115

Post by cxr »

swiftcoder wrote: post #40
hannob wrote: post #13

I used to create a number of simple web pages in XHTML back in the days when we believed XHTML was the future. Recently, while going through and restructuring some of my old "online stuff", I learned that XHTML really isn't in a state that I'd want to use it any more: * XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 are officially deprecated by the W3C. * XHTML5 exists as a variant of HTML5. However, it's very clear that it's absolutely not a pr…

> If you do a 'view source' in Firefox on a completely valid XHTML 1.0/1.1 page, it'll redline the XML declaration like it's something wrong Is the page actually being served as "application/xhtml+xml"? Most xhtml sites aren't, in which case the browser is indeed interpreting those as invalid declarations in a regular old html document

Those red squiggles on view-source: pages in Gecko all have title text with diagnostics. The message (errProcessingInstruction) in recent-ish releases is given as:

> Saw “

Re: XHTML Club

#116

Post by falcor84 »

throwaway150 wrote: post #21
falcor84 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that it is a debate, and it depends on the role of HTML in your system. If all you're doing is using HTML to "annotate a document with its structure and its formatting", then yes, I'll accept that it's not quite programming, but I've not seen this approach of starting with a plain non-html document and marking it up by hand done in probably over two decades. I do still occasionally see it done for marking up…

> In this sense, while the html itself doesn't have control flow, it is an integral part of control flow in the larger system That's correct but I don't see what it has got to do with the question of whether HTML is a programming language or not. Strings do not have control flow but strings are integral part of larger programs that have control flow. So what? That doesn't make strings any closer to being programming…

It's a question of semantics. What I'm saying is that the way many of us use html in practice in 2026 is less like arbitrary strings and more like db connection strings, where most of our focus is not on whether a bit of text is an article or an aside, but about how it participates in the control flow across different components in our architecture.

From another perspective, I'm not familiar with any present day company, where the html they use in their source code is sufficiently simple and distinct from the rest of the program to be managed by non-programmers. The only html that is just used as strings is that used for individual posts in a crm or marketing tool's cms, typically stored in a database rather than the source code repository.

Re: XHTML Club

#117

Post by [deleted] »

jraph wrote: post #2

In the linked article: > you should master the HTML programming¹ language The footnote reads: > 1. This is a common debate - but for simplicity sake I'm just calling it this. It's not really a debate, HTML is a markup language [1], not a programming language: you annotate a document with its structure and its formatting. You are not really programming when you write HTML (the markup is not procedural) (and this is no…

[deleted]

Re: XHTML Club

#118

Post by Elfener »

firefoxd wrote: post #113

Just tested my xhtml website on validator.w3.org , the errors I see triggered me: > Trailing slash on void elements has no effect and interacts badly with unquoted attribute values. Unquoted attribute values? So help me I don't see you using unquoted attribute values.

I think you (or the site decided to) ran it through the html5 validator?

Re: XHTML Club

#119

Post by MrJohz »

jraph wrote: post #2

In the linked article: > you should master the HTML programming¹ language The footnote reads: > 1. This is a common debate - but for simplicity sake I'm just calling it this. It's not really a debate, HTML is a markup language [1], not a programming language: you annotate a document with its structure and its formatting. You are not really programming when you write HTML (the markup is not procedural) (and this is no…

Of course HTML is a programming language. It's one of the languages I use every day to program with. I'm not sure what the definition of a programming language would be beyond that.

Do you mean "Turing-complete" language? Or maybe "procedural programming language"? I agree HTML isn't either of those, but those aren't the be-all and end-all of programming now, are they?

Re: XHTML Club

#120

Post by 7bit »

jraph wrote: post #32
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a technical term. Nowhere in the current HTML standard will you find a versioning of HTML. That's why it's now called a "living standard". You will never find a HTML6 or higher. That note you found is to help with any confusion.

> You will never find a HTML6 or higher You might be right, but we don't know yet. Microsoft said that for Windows 10. You might also be right that the current Living Standard specification doesn't really call it HTML5, but you'll find many people writing HTML for a living say HTML5 to refer to it, and telling them that HTML5 doesn't exist doesn't really help and is a bit wrong too if you have a descriptive approach…

Microsoft never said that, that's a myth/common misconception
Post reply on HN