HTML is an old stuff used to make web pages. That's not a language even if it has a kind of structure... So what are the professionals waiting for replacing HTML by a better system?

XML is an evolved HTML. "HAaaaa" will say some of you... I know that it's not the good way to present XML but in the facts, they are both TAG based "languages" and XML is more precise than HTML.

Anyway, what about a revolution in the web languages wold? :D

Hmm it seems you aren't quite sure what you're talking about. XML is a very GENERALIZED version of HTML. It stands for eXtensible Markup Language. There is no tags in XML, you have to have a specific schema to define what the tags are for what you're doing. XML can be anything. HTML is a subset of XML. Not the otherway around. XML can't replace HTML, there's nothing there to replace it with.

-AntonK

HTML still has a healthy future.

It might not be perfect but because it was adopted as the format for web data early on it has lived on.

There are hundreds of formats to display web data. VRML, Flash, Abode PDF to name a few.

I know what XML is... "HTML is a subset of XML" that's right and that's why I said that XML is better than HTML. In fact HTML is just a degenerated XML that use a shema defined in the navigators. The problem is that these navigators don't define all the HTML tags and they don't use them the same way (Netscape, IE, mozilla...). A way to "solve" the problem could be to use a CSS based solution. The actual one still use HTML to show the XML datas but I think that a better way could be found.

HTML is easy to use, as Pascal and Basic were, but now we need high level languages (C++, Java...). Why couldn't we change our way to build web sites? That's already began in some parts, as said Blindman (VRML for the pictures, Flash for the animations...)

First, Netscape and Mozilla are the same engine. They display HTML almost EXACTLY the same. Second, the REASON that IE doesn't display HTML correctly, or the same all the time is because Microsoft doesn't like to adhere to standards (http://www.w3.org/).

I think HTML does exactly what it needs to. I've never been one for a flashy website. The Internet was made for fast data transmission. HTML was meant only to format that data in a way slightly more aesthetic than plain text. I think people underestimate internet-powered applications more. My hope is that the web (notice i differential the "web" as only a single part of the "internet") will someday go back to what it has been, just data transmission, and that all applications will become more and more intertwined in the internet.

-AntonK

HTML does wath it has been made for. I agree with that! But I guess that we can do better even if I don't know how.

My hope is that the web (notice i differential the "web" as only a single part of the "internet") will someday go back to what it has been, just data transmission, and that all applications will become more and more intertwined in the internet.
That's already what is done... Only datas are transmited on the web. And when dealing with "the internet", you should use "the Internet"... (for your information (http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_internet.html))

HTML is still useful, it is a simple and effective way to communicate. It allows the average person to learn how to publish pages on the internet in a very short time without any programming background or training.

HTML is easy to use, as Pascal and Basic were, but now we need high level languages (C++, Java...). Why couldn't we change our way to build web sites? That's already began in some parts, as said Blindman (VRML for the pictures, Flash for the animations...)

I'd say that Pascal and Basic <i>are</i> high level languages. They are still used extensively as Object Pascal and VB. That isn't to say there isn't a need for Java and C++, just as there isn't a need for XML, VRML etc. It does not mean that basic and pascal aren't still used.

Microsoft doesn't like to adhere to standards

Why should Microsoft stick to the standard when the standards are clearly inferior?

I should know.

We offer our customers two sites. One with the “standard model”, and an enhanced site for IE users. Our customers, who pay good money for the service, have let us know which is the best site, to the point that we no longer update the standard model. No one wants to use it after using the enhanced site. We have converted many Netscape users to IE after showing them our enhanced site.

Without Microsoft’s divergence from the standard (especially IE 5 and higher) we may not have gained the marketing advantage required to make the service profitable.

XML is a bloated fat way to package data/information (as with HTML).

When the bean counters tell us to reduce the data flow, the first thing to go were the XML data sheets we were sending. The data is now stored in data.js files and highly compressed. If you’re sending the same data structures to the same application over and over again, why would you need XML? Data.xml=120K data.js=23K (under a fifth of the cost)

XML compresses quite well on average. Like many things today, XML is meant to be easy to read/write/understand. The time you save using a standard that already exists and is simple can also save you money later in code maintenence. Something I've learned over the years is that coming back to something in 10 years and being able to start right where you left off is a GREAT advantage in any system.

-AntonK

My Data.js files also use plain text and is in reality just java script.

Example of js file

Var Headings = new Array("Time","Distance");
Var Data = new Array(1.22,100,1.33,102,1.32,101);

Now compare the .XML version of the same data.
I exchanged “<” and “>” with { and } just so it will display



{XMLResults xmlns="http://tempuri.org/XMLResults.xsd"}
{HeaderNames xmlns="http://tempuri.org/XMLResults.xsd"}
{ColumnOneName}Time{/ColumnOneName}
{ColumnTwoName}Distance{/columnTwoName}
{/HeaderNames}
{Result}
{Time}1.22{/Time}
{Distance}100{/Distance}
{/Result}
{Result}
{Time}1.33{/Time}
{Distance}102{/Distance}
{/Result}
{Result}
{Time}1.32{/Time}
{Distance}101{/Distance}
{/Result}
{/XMLResults}

To use the data you need to have the XMLResults.xsd which is just under 100 lines.

I know which one I would want to come back to after 10 years.

But what you have in your js file is code... its not a datastructure. XML files can be read by any XML parser on any system in any language as long as the language and system has an XML parser.

-AntonK

I agree that if you want to share your data XML is good if you want to share data to a host of different applications. If there is only one application you want to use the data, it makes sense to be efficient.
JScript has life left in it and the data plus code to display the data, comes in a smaller package then the XML data set without code. Any JScript enabled browser can display it. Because of the reduced load on our server we can handle over double the number of customers then with XML data.
The table is displayed in the browser and lets the user sort per column, filter records, and graph the information. Without ever needing to contact the server. Our data usually comes with about 25-30 fields. We don't sell data we sell information.

XML is good for large corporate databases, banks and the like. Not for small business trying to make a good living from the Internet.

its not a datastructure

We think it is, its typing may not be as strict as XML but it is typed, The typing is exactly the same as the XML.xsd description. 1.22 is a float, 100 is a integer, "Time" is a string. Headings.Lenght() = Data record length. Dont realy need a CS degree to work that out.

Originally posted by SG-N
That's already what is done... Only datas are transmited on the web. And when dealing with "the internet", you should use "the Internet"... (for your information (http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_internet.html)) [/B]

When dealing with 'datas,' you should use 'data'...
for your information (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=data)

As far as moving on from HTML...if HTML does it, use it. As I'm sure you know, the current version of HTML is not the same as the first. It's evolving along with everything else. Though it's not impossible, I can't see something that's drastically different and revolutionary swooping in and taking over. For one thing, that would probably mean a lack of compatibility with countless suddenly legacy pages.
When you say we need a 'high level language'...what do you mean? HTML seems to be pretty high level to me - I generally don't have to worry about the current contents of the registers when I'm designing a page.
Anyway, I think if we find that a change is necessary to accomodate a new idea or demand, a change will happen. For now, I think everything's peachy.

Originally posted by malkiri
When dealing with 'datas,' you should use 'data'...
for your information (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=data)
Just a plurial mistake, but thanks anyway ;)

I like HTML, because I am not a very good programmer (I'm a bad one). HTML is also very suited for easy updating of websites. I nowadays make part of my webpages with photoshop and imageready for the graphical effects, the frontpages. And I use HTML deeper inside the website, where graphics are secondary to content, and where content changes.

But then again I am not a proffesional so what do I know.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
But then again I am not a proffesional so what do I know.
Great website for an amateur... ;)

how about PHP + HTML and using MySQL for data, thats a combo i really like.
plus a little js and flash to spice things up

Great tools but my idea was that it would be great if someone would find a new language that would do the same as Flash + PHP + HTML + JS... for websites. We would not have to include different languages to create the different parts of a website...

I'm happy with HTML, but only for now so Yes I think we can do better in the FUTURE like maybe 5 years from now but I dont think that it's a necesity right now.

Sorry for digging this old thread up, but I'd rather dig up an old one than create a new duplicate one.

It has been a while now and I started contemplating what kind of sites I like and what I like about them.

And that is content. A site that I really like is maddox's site. It is simple and too the point.

The whole graphical thing is secondary. I already started taking out intermediary pages on my website that were just there for graphical purposes and replaced them with simpler plain HTML sites (with some java elements made with image ready).

I now started working on a new website (bunny (http://bunny.*******************)) which consists solely of simple HTML and some simple Gifs. No flash, no PhP, no animations, no nothing.

Although the content is not to everybody's liking, i'm a bit fed up with all the graphical stuff on the internet. Oh no, another flash introduction. My god, where are the links to the content. Fuck they are hidding in a corner.

Let's go back to the roots.

HTML is dead, long live HTML!
(The king is dead, long live the king)

Actually Spurious I still use HTML in my pages, and it can be noted that it does suffer for some graphical touches, however it does mean I get to put the content I want in thats static up to a point (In the sense that the servers CPU doesn't have to put on extra strain to calculate the content).

Although saying that I do have the usage of ServerSide Includes which are useful in delivering dynamical content to my static pages.
(Like for instance using the same Header on each page or finishing with a Footer.)

Some servers actually allow that to be configured just with a humble .htaccess file.

As for the best presentation of a website, Well Flash is good for some animations and well Flashy stuff. Admittedly there has been a long unsaid despute about the uselessness of "Flash Splash Screens". Since a Flash intro is not just useless, it also lacks the keyword count that a decent index page would.

By all means use a Splash if your developing the site behind it, as a kind of spacer for saying "this site is in construction", but otherwise it's a pointless waste of bandwidth. (The worst ones are those that don't allow you to escape it, or bypass it)

PHP can do alot of dynamical content, but although it's language is PHP it still goes back to the basics of outputting content into HTML for browsers to parse.

Perl has similar points to PHP, although it's a swissarmy knife of a language/interpreter for servers, so it can pull a few tricks a static webpage can't.

Java, intense programming, more intense load to client-side systems and it can generate some impressive applets if you have the time to write them.

Javascript, I tend to enjoy using for bits and pieces, a very easy language to utilise to manipulate your html content (in fact understanding it means that Visual Basic is a doddle) however it did occur to me that Javascript specifications have been forcively altered by Microsoft through their browsers engineering which I don't tend to like, since they didn't exactly write the specification and they already have their own VBScript and JScript, Give it a few years and Microsoft will have taken it over to be their adopted child against the wishes of many a webdesigner.

XML, Now thats something awkward to those that run dedicateds, Do you know how many different modules you have to load before your server can actually parse these into something legible? Simply put it's a nightmare even if it's made to be an easy way of allowing data to be inter-exchanged. (Like RSS feeds and Blogs)

ASP, VBScript, JScript (Not Javascript), haven't the foggiest, It's M$ exploitable because it's M$ and therefore not on my list of prefered things to play with on the net.

CSS, well style sheets have to be mentioned as they can add alot to a site with a minimum of fuss if you now what your doing, and can create some graphical effects that don't cost too many cycles to generate.

Thats my quick rundown, if you see something different in any of these, then post them up.

HTML was stolen. It's actually a language used by printers... :D

We don't need to finish with it. It is a good basic language. But we should try to make something more to the web. Maybe... we already have lots of languages to play with... ;)

The language originated at CERN in Switzerland, and traced its heritage back thru VM/CMS & GML. And the folks over at the World Wide Web Consortium are apparently still working to keep HTML alive and evolving (http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/).

:m: Peace.

PHP was initialy a bunch of PERL scripts, made by someone wanting a little extra from his site.