== Why XHTML is doomed, at least in its strict validation form

Right now, if you are doing 'XHTML' there are basically three options
for what is actually going on:

* you are smart and clever and knowledgeable about XHTML (and
  [[masochistic XHTMLMasochism]]).
* your pages are actually _text/html_ pages and thus not real XHTML
  ([[regardless of what the validators may tell you XHTMLValidation]]).
* your pages are not displaying in IE.

The vast majority of people doing 'XHTML' are in the second category.
(The third category is not popular for the obvious reason.)

Almost all of the pages in the second category either don't validate
as XHTML or wouldn't actually work as intended if they were actually
interpreted as XHTML. And there are a lot of them, because 'XHTML'
has become a technical superstition, a kind of prophylactic good
housekeeping seal of approval that is invoked to bless your pages with
'modern web standards'.

In practice this huge number of existing invalid XHTML pages means
that it is too late to introduce strict validation. If you introduce
strict validation, either almost no one would use it (people keep
doing 'XHTML', not real XHTML), or almost no one would pass it,
creating a [[huge pressure XHTMLChicken]] to give in on strict
validation. Believing that people will rewrite their pages to pass
strict validation in any volume is a fantasy; most people simply do not
do all that much pointless work (and yes, it is pointless work).

(But we have strict validation now, you cry. Not really. What we have
right now is an illusion that is sustainable because IE does not do
XHTML, which creates the excuse to serve pages as _text/html_ so that
IE can see them, which lets people not have their noses very forcefully
rubbed in all the validation failures. If you make IE do XHTML, you
remove the excuse, destroy the illusion, and things come tumbling down
into one of the two options above. I expect the first option, with a
lot of denial and plain ignorance about it because we already have
that today.)

The net result is that strict XHTML is doomed in either case. In
the first case, it is doomed to demonstrated irrelevance; in the
second case it is just plain doomed.

(And if you remove strict validation from XHTML, I think that what you
are left with is more or less HTML5 plus namespaces with some syntactic
differences. Or possibly no syntactic differences, as I haven't been
keeping up with the latest news.)