> which enforced rules like case-sensitive elements
That's a good thing. I don't miss the old days (~2000) of <HTML><BODY><P> etc. It's ugly to my eyes. Moreover, even today, it's legal to write <dIv></DIv>.
> Browsers had a hard time with those stricter rules
Nonsense; it's developers and amateur web designers who couldn't cope with XHTML. Browsers parse XHTML perfectly these days, because it's just an application of XML. Also, existing tools like Macromedia Dreamweaver didn't add XHTML export support; it only outputted HTML.
> I really tried to use XHTML when createing weh pages, but then I asked my self why all of the trouble when browsers don't follow the standards
Browsers do follow the standards in XHTML mode! My page documents the behaviors and the yellow screen of death. For me, it's worth the trouble because it helps me detect errors like invalid syntax and unclosed tags.
> There was a push to make HTML stricter with XHTML / But it didn’t really stick.
Yup! And XHTML still works in practice: https://www.nayuki.io/page/practical-guide-to-xhtml
> which enforced rules like case-sensitive elements
That's a good thing. I don't miss the old days (~2000) of <HTML><BODY><P> etc. It's ugly to my eyes. Moreover, even today, it's legal to write <dIv></DIv>.
> Browsers had a hard time with those stricter rules
Nonsense; it's developers and amateur web designers who couldn't cope with XHTML. Browsers parse XHTML perfectly these days, because it's just an application of XML. Also, existing tools like Macromedia Dreamweaver didn't add XHTML export support; it only outputted HTML.
> I really tried to use XHTML when createing weh pages, but then I asked my self why all of the trouble when browsers don't follow the standards
Browsers do follow the standards in XHTML mode! My page documents the behaviors and the yellow screen of death. For me, it's worth the trouble because it helps me detect errors like invalid syntax and unclosed tags.