|
|
|
|
|
|
by ameliaquining
1623 days ago
|
|
|
That approach was tried, was called XHTML, and failed because it turns out that backwards compatibility with existing content, and with previous implementers' dubious choices about how to interpret that content, is not actually optional. HTML5 is complicated because it has to capture a lot of behaviors that were never designed to be a spec that people would code against. |
|
|
Nope, they didn't even try, and have absolutely no idea about SGML. Hixie just wrote the initial HTML5 spec out of his ass, and it's been fossilizing since, with major errors. XHTML has nothing to do with it.