If XHTML2 is not backwards compatible with anything, then XHTML1.x will be forward compatible only up to a point. If XHTML1.x is not usable at the moment, why should I use it if I will need to recode anyway in order to use the benefits of XHTML2, if I do need it in the hazy future, other than using converters?

I’m interested in what you say about XHTML rendering faster than HTML in browsers — do you have any links for these studies?

XHTML2 is not backwards compatible with anything. That does not mean XHTML1.0 is not forwards compatible. XHTML1.0 is compatible with XHTML1.1, for a start, which is supposed to be served as application/xml+XHTML and benefits from faster rendering etc. Of course it isn’t usable at the moment.

By maintenance I suspect we’re talking about different things. Converters can be more easily written for XHTML (XML based) to other XML based documents than from HTML ( SGML based) document to an XML document format. Furthermore XHTML can use XQuery, XPath and other such emerging technologies that will sooner or later be very useful tools.

As I said above, XHTML1.0 can be served as application/xml+XHTML so if IE9 turns out to be capable of rendering XML applications you will be able to immediately take advantage of that. Or not. It’s all about maximising compatibility and choice. That’s why I chose to use XHTML1.0

Alex

Thanks! However, the issue seems to be that XHTML 1.0 is not forward-compatible, and there will be significant changes to the specifications once XHTML 2.0 rolls around. In Beware of XHTML this is included:

XHTML 1.x is not “future-compatible”. XHTML 2, currently in the drafting stages, is not backwards-compatible with XHTML 1.x. XHTML 2 will have lots of major changes to the way documents are written and structured, and even if you already have your site written in XHTML 1.1, a complete site rewrite will usually be necessary in order to convert it to proper XHTML 2. A simple XSL transformation will not be sufficient in most cases, because some semantics won’t translate properly.

This is a big issue, and I don’t see the reason to work with XHTML 1.0 now when I will have to rework everything over again for XHTML 2.

Your argument regarding “what do you want from your documents? do you want ease of maintenance?” seems to imply that coding in XHTML1 makes for easier maintenance, when I haven’t observed any better gains from when I was coding HTML and XHTML, when I sit down and think about it. That argument doesn’t make sense.

The argument that XHTML is not yet useful so we should continue to use HTML doesn’t really make sense. XHTML1.0 can be rendered as HTML. HTML4, however, cannot be rendered as XHTML.

@Roberto: I’ve seen the Hixie advocacy text, but not the one in Coding Paradise! Thanks for sharing — those are important points and as you get deeper into web development, you end up needing to make these decisions.

http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2005/08/xhtml-considered-harmful.html

http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

regards
Roberto