hm2k wrote:The difference is that there's no benefit using XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01, there is in using CSS, but the more compatible the better really.
I appreciate you citing authorities. Naturally, they should be heard. But you come to an OSS project essentially criticizing a decision to follow current technical standards adopted by the de facto standards body for the Web, You can demonstrate not one real world, practical benefit to using HTML 4.01, not one. CSS, if anything, is measureably more backwards incompatible than XHTML 1.0 (especially given that we have yet to see any demonstration of a practical difference between an HTML 4.01 document and an XHTML 1.0 document), yet I see no criticism of the decision to use CSS at all. I continue to think this is an academic argument, in all senses of that word.
hm2k wrote:I guess we won't really know what's going to happen until XHTML 2.0 and HTML5 are released.
In an XML world, where XML has been adopted and is becoming entrenched in places outside the Web, it would be a bad decision on technical grounds for Web authors to embrace "HTML 5." There is no technical reason, none whatsoever, for the Web to avoid delivering XML reliably, and for Web clients to avoid XHTML. At best, your arguments encourage the more rapid use of XML and XSLT over XHTML. But given the benefits of an XML-ized canned DTD, we as Web authors have everything to gain and nothing to lose by encouraging the shift toward XML on the Web in whatever way we can, short of disenfranchising end users. Since phpBB has done no such thing with the decision to follow published, open standards as closely as possible, I'm missing the real world problem here. Your cited authorities are welcome to stop by here and explain it if they wish, of course, since this is a large OSS project and a reasonable venue for productive discussion.
We should talk less, and say more.