Oh well in that case if BCIT says so then it must be true. W3C must be wrong....


HTML5 is an emerging technology as is XHTML2 - my example was to to highlight that html has not been abandoned as you seem to think. But I think a good designer would be offended by your remarks. Google has recently updated their YouTube site for mobile phones in the UK, using HTML5!


Stastically xhtml is used more but that does not make it a standard for all sites! It is rather ignorant to assume that xhtml is the one and only technology every one should use. Most developers/designers do not understand xhtml and only use xhtml to the point that it is still compatible with HTML. They seldom use it for the extensive xhtml features and seldom need too. I am not saying don't use xhtml, just that it is wrong to state that you should only use xhtml. Even W3C do not advocate the use of only xhtml and state that you should use the right tool for the right job.


Any good design company will use the right tool for the right job. Many adopt xhtml as a standard but that doesn't mean it is the only worldwide standard.

You are entitled to your own personal choice but think outside the BCIT square and learn the differences between html and xhtml, then you can make an informed opinion.

You misunderstood the meaning of what I wrote I'm afraid. All I said was that the current most commonly used standard that is most compatible with all browsers (not one or the other, both) is XHTML 1.0 transitional. HTML5 is not mature yet, and even though some big sites started using it, it's only for the Mobile version of them, and not for the common user. That means they have to have two sets of code, one for regular browsers using XHTML for example, and one for browsers that support HTML5. Youtube as you said is one of them. However, I think it's mostly a show of technology than a real design decision. Google wants to show that HTML5 can be used and they demonstrated it. Doesn't mean it's rising t the top... And by the way, try to validate any Google page and you'll see that it's far from being 100% compliant with W3C... as it's the case with most big sites (even microsoft.com)

If you look around, you will realize that the DOCTYPE that is most commonly used now (by a FAR margin) is XHTML 1.0 Transitional. The whole point of my thread was to change the default HTML tag insertion templates in phpEd to XHTML instead of HTML because that is what the majority of web designers use today, in 2010. That's all. I never said nobody should use HTML anymore, only that phpEd should adapt to the most popular DOCTYPE for their defaults.

I don't think I misunderstood you when you said:

The point I am trying to make is that this is the wrong assumption and again you are stating facts that are not true. HTML 4.01 & xhtml 1.1, as dmitri, pointed out, are equally w3c-compliant and equally supported by all modern browsers with both 100% capable of validating according to w3c standards. It's a personal choice which one you want to use based on your requirements, just like you have a choice between mac & windows. I don't disagree that xhtml is more widely used, my point is that most designers and developers only use xhtml because someone told them to use it, ala BCIT, and they never questioned it. I am not debating which on is better or advocating one over the other, I just want to set the record straight that your comments above are wrong, html 4 is very much alive and used in the industry, even by top designers that actually know the difference between the 2. Enough said.

I am sure PhpEd will provide support for both eventually (as well as emerging standards) but suggest that it needs to be defined at project level same as the php version is defined since some people use templating which makes it difficult for PhpEd to detect the doctype of each page.