Future Of DHTML

What is the future of DHTML?

Is it something that will become more popular or are there things that are better than it?

I want to know because I don't know if it worth learning or not.

 

There is no such thing as DHTML. It's a buzz word (abbreviation?) invented to describe the use of javascript to modify the html or styles in an ad hoc manner. The use of javascript and server side scripting is on the increase and is unlikely to reverse direction.

cheers,

gary

 

Weeeeeeell...

(X)HTML isn't going anywhere.
CSS isn't going anywhere.
JavaScript isn't going anywhere.

Since all three must play off each other in order to work effectively/successfully, I guess DHTML isn't going anywhere

 

I've got to admit at the moment I think the greater percentage of webmasters only see a true future with HTML... maybe if we wiped the net of all the cheesy sites out there and started again then we could just have lots of well designed sites made by people who knew how to code and then programming in general might have a future... if you know what I mean (not sure I do anymore)
Diarmuid

 

HTML is slowly converting to XHTML..... so if you're going to learn coding, learn XHTML

 

Just out of curiousity, why? Let's rule out the syntactical elements, because you can use quotes and lowercase words in HTML and be perfectly valid (and I believe you should be consistent in this regard, whether you write XHTML or HTML).

But what is the advantage of learning/using XHTML over HTML? The only one I can think of is for sites that intend to make the jump over to XHTML/XML applications in the future, and probably <.01% of the Internet would derive any benefit from this.

I have no problem with XHTML, I'm just curious why you view it as being inherently better than HTML.

 

And XHTML may die out in the next iteration, due to it's backwards incompatibility.

There's hardly any difference, semantically, between html & xhtml. If you know one you'll know the other.

 

Well HTML is important.. it faciliates the learning process of XHTML. I just read from:
http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_intro.asp

Most major sites are coded in XHTML Transitional 1.0 instead of HTML 4.0

 

A slow and steady evolution based on browser support ...

Javascript -->> Proper, wider spread DOM support
CSS -->> Moves toward CSS3 standards
HTML -->> Migration toward XHTML, mainly driven by the ongoing takeup of XML as a messaging / service / data transmission format.

 

Ah my friend, your information is a little behind the times

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/

Ian Hickson is the chief editor of HTML5, the newest spec being put up for consideration by the W3C. Now, I actually have a beef with this standard, and Ian and I have discussed some of my feelings privately, but it looks like the next public standard to get ratified may be a non-XML standard.

See, XML has its place, and HTML has its place as well. Most sites will derive no benefit from being written as XHTML. I personally write everything to XHTML standards, with the knowledge I'm essentially serving up tag soup to browsers, in hopes one day all major browsers will understand XHTML/XML and I can up-convert for various, specific reasons.

But that doesn't make XHTML better or a more viable technology for Web sites than HTML. It just makes it my choice for very specific reasons. If you have no need for XML, then don't serve up tag soup. Use HTML.

Oh, and never, ever use or even bother to learn Transitional markup. It served its purpose eight years ago - it has no place in today's Internet.

Source please.

Not to be too nitpicky, but CSS3 is still in working draft form. It's not a standard, and it's likely not going to be a standard for a long time, at the pace the W3C moves

 

CSS3 standards whilst still being developed have already been adopted by certain browsers ... http://www.geocities.com/seanmhall2003/css3/compat.html
...Just shows what a mess the standards are in...drafts that have already been implemented

 

It's the fault of browser manufacturers for adopting styles that don't exist and are still subject to change. That's the whole reason we have standards - so things won't be a complete mess

If browsers held off until the standards were released, there would be a lot less mayhem. If the W3Cc sped up the process a little...

 

dhtml, ajax
its the future

 

He's asking about DHML (dynamic HTML) not XHTML (HTML formatted as XML).
I'll bet DHTML is here to stay. It's part of the new so called "web 2.0". with DHTML & AJAX being more popular every day.

 

True. But because the 'D' part of DHTML ceases to exist without the 'HTML' part, it's worth discussing the merits of HTML and XHTML, since both are used with JavaScript to complete the DHTML package, and OP's trying to figure out what to learn

 

DHTML and AJAX is a buzzword. They aren't specific things unto themselves, but describes a mixture of technologies rather well.

For more about (x)html 5.0 http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/