Standards Issues
Markup Standards
XHTML 2
The new XHTML 2 plans to improve structure elements in HTML markup. The new version hopes to do away with primitive tags and divs, and focus more on style sheets for presentation aspects of web pages. XHTML 2 is intended to improve usability and allow easier writing of markup language in contrast with previous versions. XHTML 2 also allows developers to create a design once and render it differently to be applied to a variety of online devices. In addition, there is no use for backward-compatibility.
HTML 5
HTML 5 improves upon the previous HTML 4 markup. The newer version holds focus on improved structure by including block semantic elements, inline semantic elements, embedded media, and interactivity. HTML 5 should also be able to handle incorrect syntax more easily than previous versions.
Conclusion
From what I have read, it appears XHTML 2 will have a much stronger base of improvement than HTML 5. The fact that HTML 2 will use CSS to handle all the page styling and leaving structure to be handled separately makes a lot of sense. I think XHTML 2 sounds like a great improvement. I also like the fact that it will allow developers to render the same design numerous times in different formats. With the increasing flux of online devices available, it should be strongly beneficial.
<Back to top
CSS 2.1
CSS 2.1 separates presentation aspects from actual document content. It is a stylesheet language designed to easily add style to structured documents. CSS has been a constantly developing product. It has been adapted over the years to service a variety of devices, and allows developers to easily structure the layout and style of various media presentations.
CSS 2.1 is an upgrade from CSS 2 and fixes problem present in previous versions. It has been updated to include features in high demand by users. The new version will include elements that are unchanged from CSS 2, as well as edited aspects from it. Other parts have been removed entirely.
CSS 3
CSS 3 has a lot of new features that have not been previously available in earlier versions. New features should improve the quality and usability of CSS web development software.
Response 1
This response deals primarily with Opera’s complaint to the European Union with regard to Microsoft’s non-accordance with open Web standards. Opera feels that Microsoft should be required to carry alternative browsers pre-installed with Windows.
Response 2
Response 2 explains that in the past, some extremely useful features have not been implemented for real-world use, due to lack of support from Internet Explorer. However, the newest version of Internet Explorer 8 actually passes the Acid2 Test using open Web standards.
Conclusion
To me, it appears that all of these issues have one thing in common. All of them are dealing with making the internet and Web development more usable and efficient. All of the arguing between competing corporations are trying to accomplish the same goal, and that is providing the most accessible products and services to their customers.
<Back to top
WCAG 1.0
The accessibility standards outlined in WCAG 1.0 are primarily intended to assist individuals with disabilities in accessing content on the Web. However, following the standard guidelines also assists other users by making web sites compliant with universal standards that can be understood by everyone. The guidelines are structured to allow users to quickly and effectively find the information they are looking for on the Web.
WCAG 2.0
The purpose of WCAG 2.0 is to improve upon the standards initially introduced in version 1.0. Developers have been working to make the guidelines even stricter to allow better Web development and more accessibility to users. The concepts and ideas have been developed further to provide heightened accuracy, and direct rules which will allow more effective usability. The new outline is easier to use and tailored to suit specific needs of those with disabilities. WCAG 2.0 is also more prepared than 1.0 to handle new innovative technologies.
Response 1
This response is stating that many of the people involved with the revision of WCAG are not necessarily experts on it. Much of the development has been done through mailing lists. The author of this response is stating that although the newer version WCAG 2.0 is an improvement upon the first, there is not enough professional support for it to be a strongly implemented draft. He is suggesting that current drafts of WCAG 2.0 receive an even more in depth analysis and revision by individuals with proper expertise in the fields.
<Back
