XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0 [英] XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0
问题描述
我在 http：/ /annevankesteren.nl/2004/12/xhtml-notes
一个常见的误解是XHTML 1.1是最新版本
of XHTML系列。虽然它比一年后发布的版本多了一两年，但第一版XHTML 1.0，第二版
版本实际上更新了。此外，XHTML 1.1并不是真正的跟进XHTML 1.0的后续行动
我认为XHTML 1.1是XHTML 1.0的后续行动，
XHTML 2.0将在某一天成为XHTML 1.1的后续版本。我错了吗？
I read this in http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/12/xhtml-notes
"A common misconception is that XHTML 1.1 is the latest version
of the XHTML series. And although it was released a bit more
than a year later then the first version of XHTML 1.0, the second
edition is actually newer. Furthermore, XHTML 1.1 is not really
the follow-up of XHTML 1.0"
I thought that XHTML 1.1 was the follow-up to XHTML 1.0 and that
XHTML 2.0 will someday be the follow-up to XHTML 1.1. Am I wrong?
推荐答案
Buford Early写道：
Buford Early wrote:
我认为XHTML 1.1是XHTML 1.0的后续版本，而XHTML 2.0将在某一天成为XHTML 1.1的后续版本。我错了吗？
I thought that XHTML 1.1 was the follow-up to XHTML 1.0 and that
XHTML 2.0 will someday be the follow-up to XHTML 1.1. Am I wrong?
是的，你是。
XHTML 1.1是徒劳无功，死路一条，几乎都是b $ b和理论上没用。
XHTML 2.0被设计为与之前的每个HTML
版本不兼容，尽管类似足以让人们混淆思考
否则。如果它将被发布，它很可能会被宣传为XHTML 1.0的继承者，而不是XHTML 1.1。
Yes, you are.
XHTML 1.1 is an exercise in futility, a dead end, and both practically
and theoretically useless.
XHTML 2.0 is being designed to be incompatible with every previous HTML
version, though similar enough to confuse people into thinking
otherwise. If it will ever be released, it will most probably be
advertized as a successor of XHTML 1.0, not of XHTML 1.1.
在文章中< dg ********** @ phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>，
" Jukka K. Korpela" < JK ****** @ cs.tut.fi>写道：
In article <dg**********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
XHTML 1.1是徒劳无功的练习，实际上两者都是理论上没用的。
出于好奇，你认为Ruby实际上和
理论上是无用的还是你认为DTD的模块化
实际上和理论上都没用？
对我而言，Ruby似乎至少具有理论价值。至于DTD，
我是使用顶级XML构建的语言中DTDlessness的支持者。
XHTML 2.0被设计为与之前的每个HTML不兼容
版本，虽然相似但足以让人混淆思考否则。
我认为标签是徒劳无功。特别适合
XHTML 2.0。
如果它会被发布，
看看他们是多么有趣打算提出两个
可互操作的实现。但是，HTML
WG似乎不太可能主动放弃。
它很可能被宣传为XHTML 1.0的继承者，不是XHTML 1.1。
XHTML 1.1 is an exercise in futility, a dead end, and both practically
and theoretically useless.
Out of curiosity, do you consider Ruby both practically and
theoretically useless or do you consider the modularization of the DTD
practically and theoretically useless?
To me it seems that Ruby has at least theoretical merit. As for the DTD,
I am a proponent of DTDlessness in languages built on top XML.
XHTML 2.0 is being designed to be incompatible with every previous HTML
version, though similar enough to confuse people into thinking
otherwise.
I think the label "exercise in futility" is particularly appropriate for
XHTML 2.0.
If it will ever be released,
It will be interesting to see how they intend to come up with two
interoperable implementations. However, it seems unlikely that the HTML
WG would give up on its own initiative.
it will most probably be
advertized as a successor of XHTML 1.0, not of XHTML 1.1.
嗯，广告不需要严格基于现实，所以
XHTML 2.0可以做广告宣传。已经宣传，
超过95％的浏览器正在使用，可以处理新的标记语言
而无需更新。
Bonus XHTML 2.0链接：
http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/x...ocType?id=7336
-
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ： http://mozilla.org/docs /web-developer/faq.html
Well, the advertising does not need to be strictly reality-based, so
XHTML 2.0 could be advertised anything. It is already advertised that
"more than 95% of browsers in use, can process new markup languages
without having to be updated".
Bonus XHTML 2.0 link:
http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/x...ocType?id=7336
--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Henri Sivonen写道：
Henri Sivonen wrote:
奖金XHTML 2.0链接：
HTTP：//阴间.mn.aptest.com / cgi-bin / x ... ocType？id = 7336
Bonus XHTML 2.0 link:
http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/x...ocType?id=7336
片段[xml：lang =" en -US" ] 吸引住了我的眼球。谷歌搜索
（ http://www.google.com/search?q=xml%3Alang%3D%22en-US%22 ）使用en-us显示
不同页面， en-US和EN-US。这种情况在XHTML中是敏感的吗？如果是这样，哪个是正确的？
The snippet [ xml:lang="en-US" ] caught my eye. A Google search
( http://www.google.com/search?q=xml%3Alang%3D%22en-US%22 ) shows
different pages using en-us, en-US and EN-US. Is this case
sensitive in XHTML, and if so, which is correct?
这篇关于XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
