Knowing the internals of the HTML family of web standards is quite important when you are using software such as Thymeleaf. At least if you want to understand what you are doing.
The problem is that many people know the technologies they are using for creating webs, but don’t really know where these technologies come from. It has been a long way since the inception of the first web interfaces, and since then every new technology has been changing the way we developed for the web by deprecating a good amount of our work and, especially, our knowledge.
And now, with the arrival of HTML5, things have become even more complicated. What’s it? Why is it HTML instead of XHTML? Wasn’t the HTML tag soup considered harmful?
So let’s take a step back, and see how we arrived where we are now, and why.
Back in the 90s, there was HTML…
…and HTML was a standard (or more correctly, a recommendation) maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (a.k.a. W3C). Extending from a language called SGML, HTML defined a tag-based markup language for writing rich hyper-text documents, highly coupled to the protocol that was used for serving them and their related resources across the network: the Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP).
HTTP used text headers for defining what was being served to clients and how, one of which was extremely important: the
Content-Type header. This header explained to browsers what type of content was being served to them in a language called MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions). And the MIME type used for serving HTML documents was
HTML also defined a way to check whether a document was valid. Being valid basically meant that the document was written according to the HTML rules that dictated what attributes a tag could have, where a tag could appear in the document, etc.
These validity rules were specified using a language for defining the structure of SGML documents called Document Type Definition or DTD. A Standard DTD was created for each version of HTML, and HTML documents had to declare the DTD (and therefore the version of HTML) they conformed to by means of a clause that should appear as their first line, the Document Type Declaration or
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
The Document Object Model and the tag soup
HTML was meant for displaying documents in browsers, and back in the late 90s browsers were made by fiercely competing companies that wanted to offer the maximum amount of cool features to their users. Given that HTML only defined rules for document formatting, many other features were left to the browser developers’ imagination.
The problem was that HTML rules for well-formedness were quite loose whereas DOM trees were strictly hierarchical structures, and this meant that different interpretations of HTML tag positions and sequences could lead to different DOM object trees in different browsers. Add to this the fact that these different browsers modelled the API of DOM nodes in different ways (different names, events, etc) and you will start to get the idea of how difficult it was to create cross-browser interactivity back then.
What’s more: while all this was happening, browsers had been growing quite forgiving with HTML authors, allowing them to write HTML documents that were not well formed (tag soups) by automagically correcting their errors. This lead HTML authors to create even worse formed documents, and then browsers to allow even more errors in format, adding to a quite destructive cycle. And guess what: each browser was correcting all these errors in a different way. Hooray.
Some time after HTML became a widely spread language, the W3C developed a new specification called XML (eXtensible Markup Language), aimed at the representation of general-purpose data (not only web) in the form of hierarchical markup text.
XML was extensible in that it allowed the definition of purpose-specific languages (tags and their attributes) to fit the needs of specific scenarios. But HTML documents were not well formed from the XML perspective, XML and HTML remained in fact incompatible languages. It was not possible to express HTML as an XML application.
Being strictly hierarchical and removing the structural ambiguities of HTML, XML documents were more directly translatable to standardized DOM trees (a process known as XML Parsing). Also given the fact that XML was a text-based language, and that text is a sort of technology-agnostic format (as opposed to binary), XML became especially suited for the cross-platform interchange of data across the internet. In fact, it led to the birth of the now-ubiquitous Web Services technologies.
HTML + XML = XHTML
At some point, driven by the obvious usefulness of XML and the fact that it could make web documents more extensible and interoperable (like, for example, producing more predictable DOMs across browsers), the W3C decided to reformulate HTML as an XML dialect (or application) instead of an SGML one, and so XHTML was born.
XHTML required web authors to write their documents as well-formed XML, which introduced some formatting rules that didn’t exist in HTML before: tags should always be closed, attributes should always be escaped and surrounded by quotes, etc.
The introduction of XHTML and the transformation of web documents into well formed XML was generally perceived as a step forward, because it would allow higher levels of standardization across browsers, less space for authoring errors that had to be corrected in browser-specific ways, and easier parsing and automated processing of web pages.
As a part of this, XHTML introduced a controversial concept coming directly from XML and known as Draconian Error Handling, which meant that any interpreter of XML – including now a browser – should fail immediately should any kind of format error be found in the XML document being processed. In practice, this meant that XHTML authors would have to create perfectly well-formed documents or accept the fact that browsers would never be able (in fact, allowed) to display them at all.
For validation, the XHTML 1.0 specification defined a set of DTDs that could be used in
XHTML 1.0 Strict,
XHTML 1.0 Transitional and
XHTML 1.0 Frameset. The first one was meant for pure XHTML documents that didn’t use any deprecated tags coming from HTML, the second one for transitional documents that still made use of deprecated tags and attributes, and the third one for frameset pages.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
But one of the most important aspects of XHTML was that it also introduced a new MIME type, which was the one that every web server was supposed to use for serving XHTML so that browsers knew that they had to use their XHTML parser and engine instead of their HTML equivalents. This was
Crashing down to (XHTML’s) reality
Just after its introduction, everything looked bright for XHTML. We developers should just have to wait for browsers to fully implement it and the world of web development would suddenly look much happier…
Trouble is, that never happened.
What happened was that one specific browser simply denied implementing support for the
application/xhtml+xml content type. Guess which one. Yeah, exactly, that one. Internet Explorer.
Versions of IE older than 11 showed a download dialog when you tried to access a document served with XHTML’s own content type, and that of course meant that you could not use that content type if you wanted to be able to display your web site to IE users. By the time this was corrected, it was simply too late.
Fortunately – or maybe unfortunately – The XHTML 1.0 specification included an appendix that stated that XHTML 1.0 content could also be served using the old
text/html content type from the HTML times, in order to ease the transition. And that’s exactly what most of us have been doing the past several years: creating XHTML 1.0 content, and then serving it as
text/html. Given that the XHTML 1.0 specification was published in 2000, the transition has taken long.
But the fact is that when you serve content as HTML instead of XHTML browsers will use their HTML engines for it, and not the XHTML-specific ones. And although their HTML engines have been XHTML-enabled, they still have to provide backwards compatibility for old HTML 4 code — which makes them very tricky pieces of software – and importantly, they lack some of the most XML-ish features of XHTML, starting with… Draconian Error Handling.
And if you don’t have Draconian Error Handling, you have a forgiving engine that will let you serve documents that are not well formed, automagically correcting your errors. And if you know the browser will correct your errors (in a browser-specific way), you will probably never correct your documents… and so the HTML horror story still goes on.
Knowing this, think that you’ve probably never really created a truly XHTML web site. What you’ve done is (probably ill-formed) XHTML documents served and displayed as plain old HTML. How about that?
But it went worse, because in 2002
XHTML 1.1 removed the possibility of using the HTML content type, therefore allowing only
application/xhtml+xml. The problem was that, instead of this forcing Internet Explorer to support
application/xhtml+xml, which didn’t happen, this restriction simply turned XHTML 1.1 into as much a mythological creature as Nessie. Almost no one ever used it.
In 2009, the W3C allowed again the use of
text/html with XHTML 1.1 but, again, it was too late.
Towards HTML5: A divorce story
At some point (specifically, 2004), some browser makers realised that the existing XHTML specifications were evolving too slowly to cope with the increasing demands of the web (video, audio, richer application interfaces…), and that the W3C was increasingly pushing them towards creating stricter interpretations of documents that could end up rendering huge amounts of (ill-formed) existing code useless.
They wanted to enhance web applications with capabilities like video, audio, local storage, or advanced form processing, and in fact they could do it by just adding those features in a browser-specific way, but they didn’t want to go the non-interoperable way again. They needed the standards to evolve and include these new features.
Nevertheless, there was a problem with evolving the existing standards of the time (namely XHTML): there were still lots and lots of web sites and applications still relying on legacy HTML out there, and if those cool new features were standardized by going the XHTML ultra-strict way, all those applications would never be able to use the new features unless they were completely rewritten. And everybody wanted a more interoperable and standard web, but not at the cost of throwing away many years of work done by millions of web authors.
So these makers (along with other individuals) presented the W3C with the idea of evolving HTML in a way that made all (or most) existing HTML and XHTML code still valid as new HTML while providing powerful new features for web applications and – importantly – clearly defining the way in which error handling should be done.
This latter point meant that instead of failing on the first error, browsers would know by specification how to perform the automagical correction of errors created by web authors and therefore would react to them in exactly the same way, effectively turning HTML code (be it XML-formed or not) fully cross-browser. You would still be recommended to create XML-formed code for new sites, but if you didn’t fancy or you still had some tons of old legacy HTML (and most certainly you had), you would still be invited to join the party. See that old HTML site there? Let’s add some video to it! It all sounded quite sensible.
But the fact is, all of this didn’t sound quite as well to W3C back in 2004, and they rejected the proposal and decided to go strictly the XHTML way. HTML was dead for them, there was no reason to resurrect it, and
XHTML 2.0 was the future.
This led to divorce. The proponents of this new concept for HTML, a group that included individuals from Opera Software, the Mozilla Foundation and Apple, left the W3C and founded the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) with the aim of defining what we today know as HTML5.
Finally, in 2007, the W3C created a working group for next-generation HTML, which later accepted to join efforts with WHATWG, effectively adopting HTML5 as their working specification and future deliverable. W3C and WHATWG were now united for creating HTML5, and in 2009 the W3C just let XHTML 2.0 die by closing the group working on its specification.
HTML5 was now the only future of web standards.
So what is HTML5?
HTML5 is a set of standards – still under development as of 2011 — evolving from current HTML 4 and XHTML specifications and aimed at:
- Adding advanced new capabilities to HTML that effectively move web development slightly away from the document-oriented philosophy and towards a more application-oriented one. Such capabilities are called HTML5 features and are in some cases defined by standards on their own, apart from the HTML5 core one. HTML5 features include, among others: video, audio, drawing canvas, geolocation, local storage, offline support and advanced form-related capabilities.
- Providing a pain-free path for migration from HTML and XHTML, which enables the adoption of HTML5 with little or no rewriting of code at all.
- Providing a standard way of handling code errors, so that ill-formed HTML5 code will perform in the same predictable way in all browsers.
From a practical point of view, this means that (probably all of) your current HTML and XHTML code will be considered valid HTML5 just by changing your
DOCTYPE to the HTML5 one:
And by serving your content with content type
And here you might be thinking: why does that
DOCTYPE specify no DTD at all? Because there isn’t one. HTML5 has no DTD because the rules that define whether a document is valid HTML5 or not are defined as human-readable text in the specification itself, but cannot be expressed in the DTD language.
But this does not mean that an HTML5 parser and/or engine cannot validate. It can. It simply has to be a piece of software especially devoted to HTML5 parsing including specific code programmed for executing the rules that are involved in validating HTML5 (as opposed to reading those rules from a DTD file). Even if the specification is now quite flexible, it still is a specification, and you have to conform to it.
But if there is no DTD, then why have a DOCTYPE clause at all? Because a DOCTYPE clause is needed in order to make browsers display documents in Standards Mode (as opposed to Quirks Mode). The clause
<!DOCTYPE html> is the minimum valid DOCTYPE declaration possible, and that is exactly all we need. It just acts as a switch.
Can I use HTML5 already?
Mostly yes. While (as of 2016) there is no browser that fully implements the whole HTML5 feature set, most of the common ones do implement a large part of it. So as long as your users are not stuck with very old versions of (now-defunct) Internet Explorer, you should be fine in most scenarios.
Also, note that browser support actually evolves with time not only because of the quick pace at which browsers release new versions, but also because the specification itself is still work in progress.
And what about XHTML5? Does that exist?
In theory, yes. XHTML5 is just HTML5 served with:
But note that IE didn’t support this until version 11 (Microsoft Edge does support it). So again, think about your users’ browser capabilities
Also, note that the difference between HTML5 and XHTML5 is the content type and only the content type, because an XML-well-formed HTML5 document is in fact a perfectly valid HTML5 document. This is quite different to the relation between HTML4 and XHTML 1.0/1.1, which were incompatible languages.