Hi, for a technical background you can check : http://xhtml.com/en/future/x-html-5-versus-xhtml-2/ But, being on your feet i wont be losing time on XHTML2, seems that it lost the batle ... Good luck !
I think both are good But Xhtml 2 is latest than Html 5 or Xhtml. In Xhtml there are following qualities Navigation Lists Enhancement To Definitions Lists Any Element Can Be A Hyperlink acronym Is Gone b, i, small, big, tt, font and basefont Are Gone iframe Is Gone For More Help just add me on skype i can help you in various fields. Skype= umarnaeemm Regards, Umar Naeem
XHTML is deadended. It is an experiment that failed. HTML5 is the future because it has native support for the features that developers need. As for efficiency any difference is not significant and it depends on the base code of the browser, the nature of the page content, and the technical quality of the markup, CSS, and scripting..
Neither, they both add a whole slew of stupid shit that really either has no business in a markup specification, or undoes the intent and progress offered by HTML 4.01 (and by association XHTML 1.0). XHTML 2 is basically stillborn; from a lack of enthusiasm on the part of browser makers on actually implementing it, to basically throwing the notion of being based on professional writing out the window from angels 30, it is basically the XML-tards attempt to bring their bloated, "semantics, what's that?" attitude to web development. It was doomed to failure from the start for being needlessly and pointlessly convoluted. HTML 5 on the other hand adds a whole slew of tags that serve NO legiitimate purpose if you understand semantics and HTML 4 Strict, while not only re-introducing redundancies the real HTML 4 was trying to get rid of, but introducing all new redundancies on the notion that "people were too stupid to use the existing tags properly." News flash, if people are too stupid to use what we already had properly, throwing more tags in the specification is NOT the answer. So far as being a markup specification, the vast majority of the new tags in HTML 5 are simply redundant to numbered headings and horizontal rules. HEADER, SECTION, NAV, ARTICLE -- serve no legitimate purpose if you actually understand that a H1 is the heading under which everything on the page is a subsection, H2 indicates the start of a subsection of the H1, H3 indicates the start of the subsections of the H2, and so forth down the line, with a HR indicating the start of a subsection where a heading is unwanted/unwarranted -- JUST as different level headings work in professional writing of documents like scientific papers, specification sheets, whitepapers, etc, etc. IF we already have tags for headings and sections, what do we need HEADER, SECTION or NAV for. Of course, if browser makers other than Opera got off their asses and actually implemented heading navigation we wouldn't need NAV, since then you'd just jump to the next H2 instead of skipping past NAV. AT BEST they are redundant to DIV, except that DIV implies no semantic meaning and that's a GOOD thing, since redundant semantics is as bad as having none at all. The groupings by which DIV are applied simply being to say that a style might be applied WITHOUT saying what that style is. ... unlike say, "ASIDE" for which the only meaning that could have anything to do with semantics would be a literary aside, a situation extremely unlikely on a website unless it's a transcript of Ferris Beuller's Day Off. You don't break the fourth wall a whole lot on a website! Using it to say "it's text off to one side" (which is what people are basically abusing it for) is basically as presentational as using the CENTER tag. If we were to use it for semantics it's so restricted in scope as to be just as useful as ADDRESS, any other use is presentational markup and dialing the clock back to the worst of 1997 style practices. Then there are the redundancies -- EMBED was rejected from adoption in STRICT for being redundant to OBJECT... so now not only is EMBED magically back in, but AUDIO and VIDEO are introduced which are of course, redundant to OBJECT! ... and of course even worse, AUDIO and VIDEO exist just so that browser makers can force us to support their favorite pet codecs and containers, preventing market competition while simultaneously making the situation worse than things were at the peak of the WMP vs. QuickTime vs. Realplayer wars. (which laughably was lost by all three). It's called vendor lock in and REMOVING choice, which as a monument to the stupidity of man people seem to magically think is being done to fight vendor lock-in and provide choice. If you're bullshit alarm isn't going off over that whole situation, you haven't been paying attention the past fifteen years. Would it have killed them to simply use the existing tag by adding some sort of attribute or maybe *SHOCK* type detection? There are even tags that HAVE NO DAMNED BUSINESS EVEN EXISTING AS A TAG... CANVAS and PROGRESS come to mind... Mind you, I like CANVAS -- as JavaScript, (well, technically ECMAScript -- but that fight was lost ages ago) but as a markup element? Why does it even exist? If it ONLY works with scripting, why does it need a HTML element. Would be WAY more useful if you could say... attach the context to any existing element. At best it's redundant to NOSCRIPT, at worst it's just pointless code bloat and limiting it's utility. If it's only useful in scripting, WHY THE **** is it in the markup?!? Admittedly, I say the same thing about the various onevent attributes, which is why I think they should be stricken from HTML entirely. ... and don't even get me STARTED about the loosening of structural rules making validation pointless and making the parsing engines have to work even harder than the mess known as SGML (on which HTML is based) did. In all, it seems to me that HTML 5's target audience are the people who never extracted their craniums from 1997's rectum, and until the past year or two were sleazing out HTML 3.2 and the various proprietary tags that followed and slapping 4 tranny on it. Now they get to wrap 5 lip-service around the same halfwit coding practices and have their pointless idiotic code bloat legitimized. It's why whenever the mouth-breathers call HTML 5 "the future" I go "Really?!? Looks like the worst of 1997 to me!" -- usually these are the same halfwits, morons and fools who think jQuery and Bootstrap offer legitimate benefits on websites.
HTML 5 has come up with some features that was not available in the other versions.HTML5 is a core technology markup language of the Internet used for structuring and presenting content for the World Wide Web.
Which also has jack **** to do with HTML 5 since it's a JavaScript only technology... again, why does the CANVAS tag even EXIST if it's only for scripting? But of course it's cool and trendy so it has to be slapped under HTML 5's banner along with all the other crap that has not one blasted thing to do with being a markup specification, since without those things the emperor is standing bare for the world to see. Naturally that's why HMTL 5 is quickly becoming a sick buzzword akin to "Web 2.0" and "SEO" -- where people use it without even understanding what it is. I'm REALLY waiting for someone to describe HTML 5 as a "proactive paradigm".
hah, i should have read your long post first.. but i actually like the shorter synthax of html5 in some cases, i.e. <header></header> over the previous used <div id="header"></div>, but you are right that WebGL itself isn't depending on HTML5
Which I wouldn't have in the first place, asking what's wrong with H1, H2, H3, etc... Much less that if you have more than one "header" you're going to be throwing a class or ID on it anyways making it a total wash. Pretty much all the new "structural" tags have that failing, they're either redundant to what already exists, or just encourage people to add wrappers to their content for Christmas knows what reason... Well, other than making the data scrapers (aka thieves) job easier. Sure as hell has nothing to do with more efficient code or a more accessible web; which is a laugh since that's exactly what is claimed about it and the typical mouth-breathers are yumming it up. It's redundant semantics, and redundant semantics is as bad as none at all. Admittedly, the people who endlessly wrap every blasted tag in a DIV just like how they used to wrap every blasted tag in a TABLE aren't going to grasp that; but of course, that's HTML 5's target audience... People who never grasped logical document structure, selectors, or in general "not every element needs a DIV around it and classes on it" -- which is the web development equivalent to Carlin's "Not every ejaculation deserves a name".
Well according to me HTML5 is great!!! HTML5 is more efficient than XHTML. Due to its more plugins and functionality , we easily said that HTML5 is more better than XHTML. Thanks and Have a nice day.
The XHTML standard has been dropped in favor of HTML 5 which is designed for the modern web. At a time there were two competing upcoming standards: HTML 5 and XHTML 2.0, but XHTML 2.0 was scrapped. HTML 5 is already "standardized" and the W3C and WHATWG encourage its use, saying that the sooner developers are using it the faster it will be fully implemented in all browsers. A large amount of HTML 5 features are fully functional and those that aren't can fall back to other methods. Thanks, Have a great day!
I prefer not to rely on WHATWG. The forking they cause is just taking us down the road to manufacturers dictating their own standards to enhance a competitive edge. We we have been down that road and it is full of broken bridges guicksand pits and drunk drivers. W3C is far from perfect but the slower approach they take has proven itself to be more developer friendly. See http://coboldinosaur.com/pages/HTML5_Fork.html