I do like other features in HTML 5 so I'm not lambasting it in general. But it's the W3C that steers the standardization of both HTML and XML. If XML is considered too complex or unsuitable for marking up web pages why don't they reform XML instead of inventing yet another very similar syntax?
In my opinion the W3C has lost a lot of credibility with this move.
I agree, it frustrates me too that the W3C has moved away from XML for the HTML specification. I feel like HTML5 takes 1 step forward but 2 steps back. There are some great semantic tags and I love the multimedia support, but the move away from XML just seems like we are going the wrong direction.
I don't think that the requirements of being a valid XML document are all that onerous for HTML.
It's my understanding that the "HTML" part of HTML 5 is neither new nor invented; in fact, it's a specification of how browsers already parse HTML documents, with the aim of normalizing that behavior among willing vendors. Creating a realistic specification of how to handle most existing HTML on the web seems to me like a huge step towards better integration and compatibility.
Isn't this the exact opposite of creating a new syntax? You could level your same arguments against XML when it was introduced to browsers through XHTML.
Getting vendors to be more compatible is a laudable goal but I don't see how it could possibly be the opposite of creating a new syntax when that's clearly part of what they did.
XML was a grand vision to unify document formats and it sparked an entire trend of opening up all sorts of data. It wasn't just some small incompatible change to HTML syntax.
I don't see what it buys us to go back to an HTML specific syntax, but it could have very broad ramifications. XML may have been overused, but if the W3C cannot make it work for marking up web pages then XML is dead.
Removing XML from the data integration world and going back to building parsers for every shitty DSL idea that in-house developers come up with is going to cost the world economy dearly.
Some of that money is going to end up on my bank account, so I'm seriously ambivalent about lambasting this historical mistake.
I do like other features in HTML 5 so I'm not lambasting it in general. But it's the W3C that steers the standardization of both HTML and XML. If XML is considered too complex or unsuitable for marking up web pages why don't they reform XML instead of inventing yet another very similar syntax?
In my opinion the W3C has lost a lot of credibility with this move.