XHTML is considered a dead end by WHATWG and even the W3C.
Expect no further support or development of XHTML.
HTML5 is expected to have support.
And I am confused why you keep thinking XHTML is better.
It is not.
The speed of getting a page, user experience wise, depends on the number of connections, the size of the data and the load order.
In other words, you'd get more benefit from staggering the load order of your site, using CSS sprites and data URIs, and hacking in use of SPDY than any amount of XHTML.
Render speed of moderately complex HTML is a non-issue now -- the most complex of HTML is easily managed with document.createElement and judicious use of Node.appendChild, Node.removeChild, etc,.
Expect no further support or development of XHTML.
HTML5 is expected to have support.
And I am confused why you keep thinking XHTML is better.
It is not.
The speed of getting a page, user experience wise, depends on the number of connections, the size of the data and the load order.
In other words, you'd get more benefit from staggering the load order of your site, using CSS sprites and data URIs, and hacking in use of SPDY than any amount of XHTML.
Render speed of moderately complex HTML is a non-issue now -- the most complex of HTML is easily managed with document.createElement and judicious use of Node.appendChild, Node.removeChild, etc,.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
