does it really exist any xhtml 2?

hi all. please excuse the misusage of some tech terms, but writing in
english is not as easy as in italian :)

i'm designing our new website and, since i want to do something that
will last as long as possible and since i'm not in a hurry at all, i
wanted to use the most up-to-date authoring language.

i use quite a lot html 4.01 in the past, then i recently read
carefully the xhtml 1.0 specifications on the w3.org website --just
few dozens of pages, indeed-- and made slight modifications to the
pages i've written to have them validated as xhtml 1.0 strict.

glad for this --and since i seem to understand that xhtml 2.0 is the
evolution of xhtml 1.0 and this is why i'd like to prepare my website
using xhtml 2.0 and not "just" 1.0--, i downloaded the extensive
reference for xhtml 2.0 on w3.org and printed it --10 hours a day in
front of a monitor is enough and i prefer reading printed paper--. of
course, i still haven't read everything and i'm not going to: i'll use
this printed paper brick for reference, after reading the most
important things, but, while reading, to better understand i'm trying
the things in practice.

on the documentation for xhtml 2.0, i found this (p. 20):

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-style*** type="text/css"
href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/style/xhtml2.css";?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd";>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/"; xml:lang="en"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd";
>
<head>
<title>Virtual Library</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>Moved to <a href="http://example.org/";>example.org</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>

the first thing i've done is to copy all the above and paste it in a
..html document, then validate it on http://validate.w3.org being
*sure* it was valid xhtml 2.0 or valid-something.
i was really surprised by the fact it was "not valid (no doctype
found)". i immediately thought that the first <?xml blahblah> were the
problem, as they are in the examples i found in xhtml 1.0
documentation --there's written <?xms ...> isn't necessary, but
welcome and suggested; the problem is there *musn't* be any of them to
validate your pages--.
after removing the leading 2 <?xml ..?> lines, i got a page with 32
errors and a red block saying "this page is *not* valid -//W3C//DTD
XHTML 2.0//EN". then the validator doesn't even know what xhtml 2.0
is, does it?

ok, joking apart, i don't understand what i'm missing and what's wrong
with all the above. i'd like to move to xhtml 2.0 *before* having
written dozens of pages, if it's advisable to, or to know and
understand why it is advisable *not* to, and, if the latter, why w3
prepared 32 pages of docs for xhtml 1 and 241 for xhtml 2?

thanks for your time and patience.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
Parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e shelf sèza ciapé i bajoc!
.

Quantcast