[don't forget the survey]

Hello All --

Is XML the next big thing? Hmmm. I don't see too many forums devoted to XML -- seems WebMasters are still slaving away over HTML.

What about XHTML... is that simply a cross-over language to get us from HTML to XML?

Amazon.com lists several hundred books on XML, stretching back to at least 2000. That's over six years (it takes a while to write a book). that the thinkers have been pumping out "how-to" material. Hmmm. How long does it take for a web technology concept to gestate and take hold?

The W3C says about XML:

"Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a simple, very flexible text format derived from SGML (ISO 8879). Originally designed to meet the challenges of large-scale electronic publishing, XML is also playing an increasingly important role in the exchange of a wide variety of data on the Web and elsewhere."

while W3C says the Mission of XHTML is:

"To fulfill the promise of XML for applying XHTML to a wide variety
of platforms. To assist W3C's leadership role to support rich Web contents
that combine XHTML with other W3C's work on areas such as math, scalable
vector graphics, synchronized multimedia, and forms."

Are they both XML and XHTML necessary in the long run? What say you?

Let's discuss... and be sure to take the survey.

Yours - Scott

These thoughts come from someone who has dabbled "minimally" with XML (RSS, Canada Post shipping module, e-commerce and Google Sitemaps). But that's enough for some opinions at least, isn't it? Sure it is.

The biggest problem with XML is also its biggest benefit: that it provides the coder the ability to fully customize their tag sets. However, that also means that there needs to be readers built to interpret those tag sets and that's where the problem lies. I might be able to build an RSS feed reader to capture the Globe and Mail's business news feed for Canada Lawyer (a client's site I coded...not the layout though, that was drawn up in illustrator by someone else), but I can't reuse that code to capture the RSS feed from Matt Cutts' blog.

Not only that, if we have to build feed readers to interpret things, then browsers as we know them are almost rendered useless. Why not just build feed reading programs for specific applications (news, sports, etc.)?

I see it rising as an application/content syndication delivery mechanism, but not much else.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

The biggest problem with XML is also its biggest benefit: that it provides the coder the ability to fully customize their tag sets. However, that also means that there needs to be readers built to interpret those tag sets and that's where the problem lies. I might be able to build an RSS feed reader to capture the Globe and Mail'sCanada LawyerMatt Cutts' blog.

Not only that, if we have to build feed readers to interpret things, then browsers as we know them are almost rendered useless. Why not just build feed reading programs for specific applications (news, sports, etc.)?

I see it rising as an application/content syndication delivery mechanism, but not much else.

Hi Adam -

Of course you are "qualified" to render your opinion here -- this is a dialog between webmasters (as we reach for our third or fourth cup of coffee).

Some thoughts about the points you raised:

• We are seeing RSS feed readers being built into browsers, and so perhaps the browsers will morph into a new kind of application that builds on the XML concept (we could toss in the AJAX possibilities here, but let's save that for another discussion)
• Beyond a content syndication delivery mechanism, I think that XML can (and is) providing easier ways for delivery of information to wireless devices, and also serves as a way to re-sort the database of ideas published on web pages. This makes for some very interesting possibilities with it, including the Google "Co-op" platform (see http://www.google.com/coop ) which is "a platform which enables you to use your expertise to help other users find information."

It would be good to hear from some developers who are brainstorming new applications with XML, here.

Yours -
Scott

I'm with Adam on this. I haven't really used xml much myself simply because I haven't had the need as yet. i would like to learn it better and use it more.

I voted for choice #2 above. I think over time we'll be seeing less html and more xhtml, but we're a long way from seeing html disappear. It will stay if only for all the html sites that exist today.

I do think we'll see more xml particularly in use with AJAX, but xhtml is a subset of xml. It's xml defined to display web pages so I don't see it going anywhere or being replaced by anything in the near future.

i voted for hybrid as well for the same reasons mentioned by vangogh

I voted for choice #2 above. I think over time we'll be seeing less html and more xhtml, but we're a long way from seeing html disappear. It will stay if only for all the html sites that exist today.

I do think we'll see more xml particularly in use with AJAX, but xhtml is a subset of xml. It's xml defined to display web pages so I don't see it going anywhere or being replaced by anything in the near future.

#2, simply because its the current standard. If the standards moved to fully XML then i would follow suite. BUT our browsers can and do render HTML and I cannot see them not doing so for some time to come.

So in essence you can do what you like, your browsers is going to render it (providing its almost correct).

Ibbo

XHTML has already replaced HTML, just because browsers are slow to implement it doesn't mean that it's not replaced. There's no more updates to HTML 4.01 and the next version up is XHTML 1.0, although I work with XHTML 1.1 while 2.0 is still being looked over.

HTML will still remain, but it will take some time before we see HTML gone for good, what I'm more interested though is seeing more people conform to standards even if it's HTML 4.01.

2-8 years is probably not long enough to phase HTML out, I base this on how long it takes IE to actually release a browser that actually allows us to make use of new web standards (bring back browser wars! since it was the only time things got done), if we don't get that then it's going to take a lot longer than expected because sadly IE is still the most widely used browser.

XML is used in many applications as it stands now and is not directly web related, it's an effective way of storing configuration data, user data, file format data etc. It does not need to replace XHTML, as XHTML is a family document based off XML, so in using XHTML you're still writing and conforming to XML standards. If the technology that helps XML out gets out there, then I'd definitely start using it more often in web development as it simplifies development even further.

But to answer your question that HTML is dead when XML rises would be true as it's providing the pathway for the future, hopefully near future but not likely.

Cheers,

MC

Oh yeah, I voted for #2 as well.

Mind you, I don't see XHTML as the accepted standard...yet. The vast majority of sites, especially in my native land of Canada, are still based off of conventional, traditional HTML and it's what's being taught in the schools here.

There are even quite a few sites using HTML 2.0 ! (No word of a lie, check out weddings and flowers dot com sans spaces for one.)

So that's why XML is a long way off, if at all...as a web design community, we're slow to react.

Yep. I realize we won't be seeing anything new added to html as any new standards will be applied to xhtml, but it's all us webmasters who really need to make the switch before html goes away. And browsers are going to need to render html given all the sites in existence. And some of those sites are pretty big and will take a lot of work to change.

Case in point is Microsofts own site. Looks like html to me and given they're the ones putting out IE I'm pretty sure IE will be reading html for awhile. There are tons of sites coded in html from major companies and until most of them are updated to xhtml, html isn't going anywhere.

Standards also say we should all be developing sites using css layouts. I still see quite a few table based layouts out there and still see plenty of people arguing that tables should be used for layout. Standards can change easily, but it takes us people a little longer to change old habits.

vangogh may have touched on one of the other reasons behind a slow move to XHTML...most people can't see a good reason to. And that, IMHO, is at least partly due to the number of evangelist types out there who preach the good word without properly explaining it. The problem with evangelists and preachers is that their target market is the people that are already buying into the program, which doesn't really help it to grow any.

My own desire to learn XHTML came not because someone told me to do it, but because I thought "if I learn it, can I come up with a practical reason to learn it?" Fortunately, I was able to do exactly that, but if I'm being totally honest, I don't think like most other people and most other people couldn't.

That's actually one of the motivating factors behind the SEFL site...give people a practical, non-preachy reason to use XHTML. Although I do enjoy a good D-Von "Ohhhhhhhhhhhh Mah Brutha...TES-TI-FYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!" once in a while.

Hi All -
Great discussion. Thanks.

"Remember back in the day, when everyone just used HTML to make web pages?"

"Remember when tables were the only way to do layout?"

"Remember when websites were seen as isolated brochures online, rather than an integrated application with database functionality?"

I think the time is coming soon, if not already, when that is how we'll look at things.

Yours - Scott

I think your third "remember when" point has already made a turning point. That fact that people can use the web for online shopping has already made an impression that the web IS bringing them a function of value.

Hello All --

Thanks for all the great posts.

Hey... anyone have a link to an XML project they have done, that COULD NOT be done in that old archaic language known as HTML?

It would be good to see some samples.

Yours - Scott