XHTML, parsed using an XML parser is very specifically defined and does not look different in different browsers, but few people serve XHTML documents with the application/xhtml+xml headers, because IE refuses to parse XML. XHTML parsed as HTML + no better than HTML. I already use XHTML for sending documents to my friends.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Anselm R Garbe <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/10/18 Ilya Ilembitov <[email protected]>: >> Yes, you got it totally right. But why do you believe that html would be on >> par with proprietary formats? I mean, is there any possibility that html >> produced by markdown (or similar languages) interpreter won't be displayed >> correctly in most of browsers (including IE)? I thought it's basic and >> standartized enough. I do agree, though, that S5 is likely to have some >> issues. > > The problem with HTML is that it's vagely defined and that it looks > different not only in every browser but also every 2 years (because > some mastermind came up with the next CSS and DOM features). > > This doesn't happen with plain text, so if you ask me what's better: > HTML or Markdown, my answer should be clear. Plain text will look the > same in 100 years, but potentially there won't be any HTML4 or HTML5 > browser around in 25 years time... > > (as a side-note: If you use troff or TeX I bet you will get proper > results in a hundred years time as well). > > Of course the sustainability argument isn't very important if it's > just about a presentation of the next great future technology that > will be obsolete in 5 years anyways. For such I recommend use HTML, > they will be a relict of their time anyways by then ;) > > Kind regards, > Anselm > >
