43 replies [Last post]
gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

has anyone read this article?
http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2005/03/14/xhtml-is-dead

I must say it has made me think a bit about this whole xhtml bandwagon mentality and has brought up a few heated debates in the office.

My take is that xhtml/css is more of a coding style/responsibility to semantics and accessability. So putting the xhtml doctype encourages you to validate your code to be stronger typed and to encourage a move to web standards even though it is not working as xml purists would like it to.

Many coders though, sour this by slapping a xhtml doctype on a site and just playing up the hype for clients/customers.

Would love to hear opinions of people of the forum (if this topic is not a dead horse by now! Shock )

cheers

Tags:
Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 7 years 35 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

gleddy wrote:
has anyone read this article?

Yeah. Mr Olsson led me down the xhtml 1.1 path from which I only recovered after joining this forum. I see he has found another bandwaggon.

But you're being a little imp aren't you? check out this thread http://www.csscreator.com/css-forum/ftopic10924.html
ignore the title but read on if you have the time.

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

gonna check it out.

Quote:
But you're being a little imp aren't you?

not sure what this means? British slang for ape? or are you meaning mischievous? Laughing out loud

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 35 weeks 3 days ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

XHTML is dead

An imp is a mischievious little creature. Wink

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

ahh yeah. (you like how I edited the above post to make it look like I knew the word?)

nah. not imp. just looking for good opinions from a forum of peoples opinions I trust. You may have explored this topic, but I am just doing so in more detail now...

but the link above is also the type of thing I am looking for if this topic has already been done.

Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 7 years 35 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Thank you Tyssen. I toyed with possum... but decided discretion was the better part of valour Wink

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 35 weeks 3 days ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

XHTML is dead

'Possum's copyrighted by Dame Edna anyway Wink

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

antibland
antibland's picture
Offline
Leader
Pittsburgh
Last seen: 5 years 15 weeks ago
Pittsburgh
Joined: 2005-01-17
Posts: 603
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

gleddy (and gang),

I'm afraid old Ian may be right. This was a rather disturbing snippet:

Quote:
If you send XHTML as text/html, as far as browsers are concerned, you are just sending them Tag Soup. It doesn't matter if it validates, they are just going to be treating it the same was as plain old HTML 3.2 or random HTML garbage.

TPH, your days as doctype nazi may be in serious jeopardy, by friend. Although I haven't had time to finish the article, as I'm reading it, I think, is it worth trying to tackle the myriad fixes necessary to assure the pseudo xhtml document will properly render if one day served as text/xhtml+xml? Ironically, we may be the vision-impaired users we so frequently claim to help.

- Antibland

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

ok, maybe I am being a little imp'ish Lorraine Smile

but that is what I am thinking about this article. (it was actually the responses in the artice that I found very thought provoking)

is xhtml just a 'cool' step up that makes little difference, or is it really a transitional step towards something greater?

If you markup semantic, accessable sites that work solid cross-browser, then why not HTML 4.01 Strict?

* I am a XHTML 1.0 Transitional boy myself.

Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 7 years 35 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Andrew - There are so many variations on this theme written by learned bloggers that they are confusing each other, arguing among themselves and performing the most amazing U-turns. They have been doing so since around the turn of the century - don't they realize that some people actually listen to and act on their advice?.

So, trying to ignore my myopia, I allowed myself to be drawn hither and thither, wasted oodles of time "studying", rewrote my most important web site twice - now in the third iteration (hence being still awake at 2:40am BST) and finally decided to plump for one of the versions of the truth I had stumbled across. That is the version of the truth here on this very forum.

I ain't going to change again unless the OP on that other thread comes up with a very compelling, serious argument.

gleddy - just caught your post. I have to produce computer tutorial websites for visually-impaired people. HTML Strict gave me the wherewithal to produce accessible pages and make them visually appealing/acceptable to those who had some useful vision. I chose to go down the XHTML Strict route because it forced me into um... stricter methods and I believed it had a little more future-proofing than HTML. I think I would always choose a strict version. But on another site, developed primarily for different users - who knows? I may even use wizbang Flash, music, frames Shock

I like to think I am building up a group of related skills to be as ready as possible for whatever our lords and masters in W3C, WaSP, MS, MAC and any of the other acronyms want to throw at us. The rule setters are not acting professionally (running around like headless chickens comes to mind) - professionalism is our job!

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

nice read there Lorraine... it's pretty much what I was looking to start up here and was interesting to hear from TPH, Hugo, etc on the matter...

always a firey topic isn't it? but good to make you think about what you are doing when you include this DTD.

cheers!

gary.turner
gary.turner's picture
Offline
Moderator
Dallas
Last seen: 23 min 13 sec ago
Dallas
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2004-06-25
Posts: 9057
Points: 3026

XHTML is dead

Troll. That's the word that comes to mind. weBlogs give everyone a chance to star in their own movie. Enough of these 'movie stars' seem to throw opinions out there just to see how much racket they can cause.

Now for the real shocker. Calculus is dead!!! Think about it. How many people actually figure their problems using calculus. No, they only use formulas. Anyone can use a formula. How many really use the second derivative of delta s per delta t as delta ⇒ 0 to compute acceleration? Very few. They just use formulas. Calculus is dead, I say.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have used calculus, mostly because I can never remember the formulas. Smile I also write my 'html' documents as xhtml strict. I also test by serving up as application/xhtml+xml due to its go/no-go results.

The idea that xhtml served as text/html is equivalent writing tag-soup html is ludicrous. That html browsers are fault tolerant is orthogonal to the quality of the document. Hang in there, write quality code and when a certain browser is able to render xhtml as it should, we can take advantage of the xml side of the deal. Until then, let's keep on writing as modern a code as we can get away with.

cheers,

gary

Unplanned code results in a tangled wad of brain-cramping confusion.

There are enough html & css demos and tutorials to be interesting. Please visit.

DeprecatedDiva
DeprecatedDiva's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
NW Louisiana
Last seen: 7 years 19 weeks ago
NW Louisiana
Timezone: GMT-6
Joined: 2005-06-12
Posts: 135
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

I will read those other sites later....

Just know for now that I have learned about doctypes from this forum and I chose xhtml strict immediately. I have this thing for bringing order out of chaos and this is the perfect tool to help me.

I've also learned about the importance of accessibility and how our choice of structure and style directly affect access to special-needs folks.

I too will stick with improving my code for the betterment of the world. Laughing out loud

DeprecatedDiva

antibland
antibland's picture
Offline
Leader
Pittsburgh
Last seen: 5 years 15 weeks ago
Pittsburgh
Joined: 2005-01-17
Posts: 603
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

DeprecatedDiva wrote:
I will read those other sites later....

After reading them, I don't think you'll remain at the same elevated comfort level that you're at now.

- Antibland

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

why strict xhtml DeprecatedDiva?

can I ask what makes you pick this over transitional?

any problems / or advantages that you can think of?

antibland
antibland's picture
Offline
Leader
Pittsburgh
Last seen: 5 years 15 weeks ago
Pittsburgh
Joined: 2005-01-17
Posts: 603
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

gleddy wrote:
why strict xhtml DeprecatedDiva?

can I ask what makes you pick this over transitional?

any problems / or advantages that you can think of?

Currently (subject to change, though), I also do websites using xhtml strict. I simply find that I can think more clearly when the markup is tighter. It also makes me 27% sexier. Transitional leaves me feeling only 13.5% sexier. Crying

- Antibland

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 15 weeks 2 days ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15650
Points: 2788

XHTML is dead

Quote:
(if this topic is not a dead horse by now!


Well it seems that it is never going to be dead horse Gleddy, but your post gives me the impression that you do not read all the threads on this forum we have gone over and over this subject and in some detail, to do so again is just going over old ground.

All these weblogs are starting to become a danger, giving half the story most of the time or are just not very well thought through, there is so much "opinion" about on the web through these webblogs that people don't know what to believe and are comming away with incomplete ideas.

This is one such link IMO that is incomplete in it's conclusion

I really can't believe these questions are being asked again or that people still appear to have confusion over these issues.

Yes your bloody code will render if served correctly forget the bloody parsers, forget the bloody phrase 'tag soup' just write well formed code semantically correct, understand how xml treats sgml comments and prepare for it.

Thank christ someone else gets the point (Gary) that how the browser renders is irrelivent, it is not our fault or problem how a browser may render the code but that we write well formed , semantic code that will work whether parsed as tag soup or through the xml parser serving XHTML as text/html is NOT WRITING TAG SOUP CODE and if I see that alluded to again am likely to have an extreame fit.

Sorry to sound harsh Gleddy but if I didn't know better your trolling your own forum, but I am getting slightly tired of this debate and of links being thrown up just to start a discussion that has already been covered you can only go over the same subject a limited number of times especially when one considers we have an active thread along these lines at the moment.

Hugo.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Quote:
Sorry to sound harsh Gleddy but if I didn't know better your trolling your own forum

Well I did try to bury this by saying thanks for the link to the other thread from Lorraine, but everyone keeps adding to it, including you.

If you are so tired of it why respond Hugo?

I will admit in hindsight that I did not search for this topic before posting and definitely should have done so, but gimme a break man. Trolling? That's a bit lame. :roll:

I have been thinking about this topic a lot, have been reading most posts on this forum and wanted some opinions I trust (which includes yours). I can see your frustration in this re-occuring topic so just don't add anymore and let it die, or close it.

Either way the responses from this forum give me a good spin on the whole issue.

gary.turner
gary.turner's picture
Offline
Moderator
Dallas
Last seen: 23 min 13 sec ago
Dallas
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2004-06-25
Posts: 9057
Points: 3026

XHTML is dead

antibland wrote:
DeprecatedDiva wrote:
I will read those other sites later....

After reading them, I don't think you'll remain at the same elevated comfort level that you're at now.

- Antibland
I've read a pot full of these polemics and have yet to see any compelling reason to not use xhtml1.0 and serve it as text/html; and that includes the seminal 'xhtml ... considered harmful'. Maybe I'm a few slices short of a loaf and am not capable of understanding. Or, maybe not. There is good reason to use xhtml1.0 strict regardless of the MIMEtype. For one, I do test as application/xhtml+xml. My pages will not break due to MIMEtype. For another, I have begun in a small way to play with the eXtensible part of xhtml. There is a certain satisfaction in going past the <address> element to the <street>, <city>, <state>, <zipcode>, etc. elements; knowing that if you write your extended DTD correctly, the UA will render it properly and another machine can parse the document to extract data. And that's with xhtml1.0.

So I'll stick with xhtml1.0 strict. There's no good reason not to.

gleddy wrote:
why strict xhtml DeprecatedDiva?
No diva here, not even deprecated. But, I'll answer for myself. XTML1.0 or html4.01 strict, because there is no good reason to use deprecated (there's that word) tags or attributes. And if you're not going to use them, why use a DTD that says you are?

DD: If I tap out in Bossier City, will you have a couch for me?

cheers,

gary

Unplanned code results in a tangled wad of brain-cramping confusion.

There are enough html & css demos and tutorials to be interesting. Please visit.

larmyia
Offline
Elder
London
Last seen: 5 years 31 weeks ago
London
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-25
Posts: 1060
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Hugo wrote:
but I am getting slightly tired of this debate and of links being thrown up just to start a discussion that has already been covered you can only go over the same subject a limited number of times especially when one considers we have an active thread along these lines at the moment.


In defence of gleddy (not that he needs defending I'm sure!) but when you read articles which are well written going against what you thought to be true, you question what you're doing. generally though, as we don't actually know the people who've written them, it's hard to know whether we can trust what we read.

However, since we've all had our questions answered here and we know what you guys are capable of, often it feels the best place to come for clarity is here.

I personally know I've read these kinds of threads dozens of times and I still find the whole issue confusing. I see where gleddy's coming from, and I'm assuming he only posted because he respects your opinions.

in addition, I didn't realise the other thread was going on as when I first checked it out it seemed to just be a site check. it was only when Lorraine pointed it out that I read it through, (and again I must say I'm finding it rather confusing!).

so, don't be too hard on gleddy or the rest of us when we post the same questions here time and time again. it's only because we respect your opinions and aspire to your "guru" level of knowledge.

larmyia

ps: gleddy...hope I didn't step on your toes!

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 15 weeks 2 days ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15650
Points: 2788

XHTML is dead

Your right I did add to it, mainly due to the fact that it appeared that it was running on, my comments were not meant to be harsh really , but I just despair at the amount of confusion around the web on this subject and that it is hard to clarify easily.

As I have just noticed Larmyia write that it is confusing when one sees well written pieces that seem to contradict what we thought was true

These people generally tend to not have any attribution it's hard to know whether a person is well versed in what they're talking about.

gleddy I did say "if I didn't know better that you were trolling"

I meant to say that the piece had the feel of a troll I wasn't really accusing you of this.

It's seemingly such a confusing subject that I worry when too many threads go on without reference to previous material.

The same links and views get trotted out though as in the Hickson link to that infamous article; this was posted here a while ago and drew the attention of one original contributors who was never happy about certain conclusions and provided explanations as to why.

I think maybe this subject still requires some further discussion and clarification judging by some of the responses here and that is a subject still far from clear in peoples minds .

As I mentioned in the other thread it may make sense to collate and copy the previous threads on the subject into a new one and let the discussion continue for all to add to and maybe make sticky so that it's obvious.

So apologies Gleddy I was too harsh but it was out of a feeling of despair and that other thread Smile and I take Larmyias points and stand suitably shame faced and humbled.

Hugo.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

larmyia
Offline
Elder
London
Last seen: 5 years 31 weeks ago
London
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-25
Posts: 1060
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Hugo wrote:

As I mentioned in the other thread it may make sense to collate and copy the previous threads on the subject into a new one and let the discussion continue for all to add to and maybe make sticky so that it's obvious.

I think that is an excellent idea!

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 39 weeks 1 day ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

XHTML is dead

HTML/XHTML/XML is a confusing issue that is too easily stirred up by bloggers, and very few people seem to have reached any stable conclusions. Indeed, it is because the situation is so unstable and changeable that we are left constantly having to reassess our decisions about the paths we take in respect of website coding and standards. It all comes back to sodding Micro$oft of course, for had they built an XHTML parser into IE6, everybody would by now be singing from the same hymn-sheet :sigh:

As professional website and web application designers/developers, we need to know that our work is going to render correctly in as many browsers as possible, past, present and future. That's the bottom line. The web is a volatile, ever-changing place with new standards and proposals being introduced on a seemingly weekly basis. XML definitely looks to me to be the way of things for the future of data mark-up (description), so it follows that XHTML will most likely be the way of things for the future of document mark-up (semantics). It is certainly the fashionable thing to use at the moment, even if those followers of fashion still don't understand what they are doing, or validate their code. The widespread awareness of XHTML alone should be enough to guarantee its future.

By working with valid XHTML (1.0 or 1.1) now, we are addressing all of the associated issues ahead of the pack, and forcing ourselves to be strict with our coding (which can only be a good thing as technology advances and the whole area of web design becomes ever more complex). To change XHTML 1.0 to XHTML 1.1 or even to HTML 4 is but the work of a moment provided your underlying code is strictly correct, so I say that we should work as strictly as we can to the ideals of XHTML and then just see what happens. If we then have to change a few doctypes, mime types and the odd tag here and there, big deal - it will probably take me less time to change a dozen sites in this way than it takes me to hack just one CSSP site for Internet Explorer. Grrrrr!

Why oh why oh why can't Micro$oft just do the right thing and produce a browser that follows global standards. Why do they ALWAYS have to spoil the party and create so much unnecessary work for the world's website designers?

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 7 years 35 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

larmyia wrote:
as we don't actually know the people who've written them

I don't actually know any of the people on this forum, but I have met or corresponded with several of the contributors to the discussion - on that other link Shock . Some were on show at @Media2005.

Many are acknowledged experts in several fields, not least of which is accessibility, and yes I was seduced by Mr Olsson's forceful arguments for XHTML1.1 (with mimetype fiddling).

The major players on this forum are or should be acknowledged as* experts in the field of CSS coupled with XHTML and are well equipped to answer our questions in their field. Take Gary, for instance, debunking the myths around the white-space bug. He and DCE also share their test and demo files with us which is tremendously generous of them and also helps me to appreciate, nay! marvel at, the level of expertise they actually have.

But... let's hope that this forum continues to afford opportunities to discuss "controversial" issues although they may be unpalatable, given the ethos of the forum.

* edit.

larmyia
Offline
Elder
London
Last seen: 5 years 31 weeks ago
London
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-25
Posts: 1060
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Lorraine wrote:
larmyia wrote:
as we don't actually know the people who've written them

I don't actually know any of the people on this forum,

when I said know I was being more figurative than literal. we've discussed many topics on this forum and are able to a degree judge whether to take note of someones opinion. or not.

and although I know some of the authors of the links/posts we've been discussing are well known in their/our field, I was really referring to what someone (I think Hugo) said before about bloggers spouting unfounded opinions...

do we ever really know anyone? Wink

larmyia

Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 7 years 35 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

larmyia wrote:
do we ever really know anyone? Wink

Agree Laughing out loud and if we don't really know our field, we have to make value judgements based on our personal opinions. It just makes this so much more difficult when as I said early this morning
Quote:
There are so many variations on this theme written by learned bloggers that they are confusing each other, arguing among themselves and performing the most amazing U-turns.

Goodness was that only a few hours ago - seems like a lifetime Smile

drhowarddrfine
Offline
Leader
Last seen: 4 years 20 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT-6
Joined: 2005-05-21
Posts: 764
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Quote:
Why oh why oh why can't Micro$oft just do the right thing and produce a browser that follows global standards.

If you make everyone do it their way then you must use their products and tools, which you must pay them for. If they follow standards then anyone can make the same products and tools.

This is the reason they integrate the browser. It's easy for people to use it because it's built-in and it's free. No need to install anything. Which is why calling IE 'popular' is not necessarily true but it forces their way of thinking on everyone.

The biggest problem in working on IE is like working on a Brand Y computer that requires a different set of screwdrivers to open the case because they don't use philips or standard screws and they unscrew by rotating right instead of left.

IE7 is 10 years behind the standards or wrong.
But it works in IE!
IE is a cancer on the web -- Paul Thurott

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 39 weeks 1 day ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

XHTML is dead

drhowarddrfine wrote:
Quote:
Why oh why oh why can't Micro$oft just do the right thing and produce a browser that follows global standards.

If you make everyone do it their way then you must use their products and tools, which you must pay them for. If they follow standards then anyone can make the same products and tools.

I wasn't really looking for an answer as I could probably write a thesis on this subject (and have come close to it a few times on this forum). My statement was more of a frustrated plea to the great God of all things computer related Wink ...but thanks anyway Smile

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

nix
nix's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
(n): a position or site occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature
Last seen: 4 years 47 weeks ago
(n): a position or site occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature
Timezone: GMT-4
Joined: 2003-08-12
Posts: 159
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Wait. I'm confused. So, I should stay with validating 4.0.1 instead of moving on and learning XHTML 1.0?

I refuse to be like the faceless masses of sheep and have a signatu......awwwwwwwww CRAP!!

Backups? Ha! I've never had troub**&{[}$$ERROR NO CARRIER

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 15 weeks 2 days ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15650
Points: 2788

XHTML is dead

No the point is that XHTMLl and HTMl are essentially the same thing, XHTML is just reformulated HTML that follows the well formedness that XML required; i.e all tags lower case, all empty tags closed, nested elements opened and closed in correct order.

In essence there is nothing to learn in order to use XHTML other than these basic principles in markup code that and understanding which Doctype to use 1.0 rather than 1.1 which should not be used unless your prepared to loose out on IE6 rendering in standards mode and serve up pages with the correct Mime type: application/xhtml+xml along with the xml prolog as is mandatory for 1.1

The debate amongst purists/theorists is that you should not really serve up XHTML1.0 as anything other than application/xhtml+xml .

However the W3C allows for the serving up of XHTML 1.0 with the normal Mime type for html pages text/html as it does not have the xml parser required to render application/xhtml+xml and will use it's tag soup rendering engine this is not a bad thing as long as we understand that we are not actually gaining anything in using XHTML over html except that if and when we did deliver our content with correct Mime type our pages would satisfy the xml parser and not break and show a blank screen as the xml parser is intolerant of the rules being broken, so we gain from the discipline of working to the well formdness of XHTML markup whilst retaining the ability to switch IE6 into standards mode even if our code is rendered by the 'Tag soup parser' which does not mean that our code is in any way inferior or wrong or displaying incorrectly as long as it is semantic and well formed then it will display as intended, you will see little difference in reality between the two different rendering engines.

Tag soup just means if you throw rubbish code at the browser then it will attempt to make sense of it and display something the XMl parser will have none of that and will not parse code if it is incorrect.

So you can if you wish to satisfy the purists write to HTML 4.01 strict and serve your pages up as text/html and the browsers will render in 'Standards Mode' which is the important aspect but will have to adjust your markup if and when you decide to move to xml parsing or write to XHTML 1.0 with markup which already follows the strict rules for XML parsing even though the browsers may be rendering as text/html, your pages will still display as intended.

Most of us prefer to follow the stricter discipline that XHTML requires even though we are not availing ourselves of the actual benefits that the Extensible part of XHTML brings to the party and even if that may bring disapproval from the purists camp.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

DeprecatedDiva
DeprecatedDiva's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
NW Louisiana
Last seen: 7 years 19 weeks ago
NW Louisiana
Timezone: GMT-6
Joined: 2005-06-12
Posts: 135
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

gleddy wrote:
why strict xhtml DeprecatedDiva?

can I ask what makes you pick this over transitional?

any problems / or advantages that you can think of?Validating XTML1.0 Strict reminds me of my days as an electronics technician within the confines of the military. It gives me a sense of accomplishment when I can follow set guidelines and still produce a pleasingly palatable product (not that my site is.... I don't know. I just have a strong sense of 'balance' and try to achieve that.) Above all, it forces me to think in a language that I am just learning. There is no better way FOR ME to learn than to totally immerse myself. STRICT forces me to "dot every i and cross every t" in my new-chosen language. The advantage I experience is the knowledge that I will be able to move forward to xml with a clean conscience that I will not be adding to the 'tag soup' alluded to in the article.

I've tested my code using all the way up to XHTML1.1 with xhtml+xml and have validated. I've even, with a couple of find/replace actions, easily reverted to HTML4.01 Strict & validated without a hitch. I don't think it would have gone as easily with transitional. I tend to think of transional as a form of a crutch. When trying to get a page with javascript to validate, I put my DTD as xhtml transitional before it would pass. Then I actually decided to look at what was in the XHTML Strict Doc Type Definition. When I simply conformed my javascript to that in the DTD, my code again passed the STRICT DTD. And I didn't lose any of the dynamic components that I enjoy utilizing.

So, I picked strict because it is the proper tool for me to accomplish the task I have set myself. I see no problems with staying with strict, whether XHTML, XHTML+XML, or HTML 4.01. The advantages are that I save myself a lot of work in the future. I work VERY HARD to learn the formal way now, so I don't have to work as hard in the future. I've been called lazy before but I actually think of it as efficiency. When presented with such arguments in the past, my supervisors have shaken their heads, walked off, and later admitted that I was right.

kk5st wrote:
DD: If I tap out in Bossier City, will you have a couch for me?

cheers,

gary

Yes. & DH brews a fine cold beer, & I brew a fine mead. We can lift our suds and commisserate the miserable state of education in this country.....

Some additional thoughts: I will be forthright and explain that I lack the education and understanding of this forum's "professional (or expert) website and web application designers/developers". Without that background, I am at a distinct disadvantage. But this forum has most certainly provided me with the tools to improve my skills in a more controlled process than that which I faced before.

"Parse" to me is breaking down a sentence into its component parts and providing a complete description of that part's place and value in the sentence. (I haven't looked up the formal definition) If it means the same thing in HTML/XHTML/XML, then I know I am on my way to understanding the semantics of developing a well-formed document that can be understood by all or nearly all browsers. When I hear the term "tag soup", I immediatele equate it to the current state of my FP-designed website that is visible to the public.

kk5st wrote:
There is good reason to use xhtml1.0 strict regardless of the MIMEtype. For one, I do test as application/xhtml+xml.
MIME and MIMEtype still confuse me. I have no idea what "mime" relates to in web applications. I am still trying to wrap my head around PHP so I can incorporate templating to reduce bandwidth waste.

larmyia wrote:
...when you read articles which are well written going against what you thought to be true, you question what you're doing.
Satire has a way of doing that. Whether the piece was written to make people think or just as a stick to stir up a hornet's nest, I would say it fits the bill, even if that was not the author's purpose for the article. The flavor is very much that of satire.

Hugo wrote:
Most of us prefer to follow the stricter discipline that XHTML requires even though we are not availing ourselves of the actual benefits that the Extensible part of XHTML brings to the party and even if that may bring disapproval from the purists camp.
Exactly!

DeprecatedDiva

Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 7 years 35 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

DeprecatedDiva wrote:
Without that background, I am at a distinct disadvantage.

Whoa there. :!: If I may make so bold. It is because of the extreme diversity of members' skills that this forum is a vibrant as it is. You can (and do) act as a catalyst to bring some of the traditional thinking "out of the box". It has been refreshing to read some senior members say something like, "I didn't know that - thanks for the enlightenment." Or to read a member say, "You may know what that means but can you help me to understand the concept?."

I.E. (whoops sorry) that is to say, everyone has something valid to contribute.

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 39 weeks 1 day ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

XHTML is dead

Well said Lorraine =D>

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

DeprecatedDiva
DeprecatedDiva's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
NW Louisiana
Last seen: 7 years 19 weeks ago
NW Louisiana
Timezone: GMT-6
Joined: 2005-06-12
Posts: 135
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Lorraine wrote:
DeprecatedDiva wrote:
Without that background, I am at a distinct disadvantage.

Whoa there. :!: If I may make so bold. It is because of the extreme diversity of members' skills that this forum is a vibrant as it is. You can (and do) act as a catalyst to bring some of the traditional thinking "out of the box". It has been refreshing to read some senior members say something like, "I didn't know that - thanks for the enlightenment." Or to read a member say, "You may know what that means but can you help me to understand the concept?."

I.E. (whoops sorry) that is to say, everyone has something valid to contribute. Laughing out loud I shall proudly wear the mo*spam*r "catalyst!" .... Tony, can I have that as a custom title? Laughing out loud All kidding aside, thank you Lorraine. It is delightful to drop a pebble in the pond and try to follow the path of the ripples!

DeprecatedDiva

Lorraine
Lorraine's picture
Offline
Elder
UK
Last seen: 7 years 35 weeks ago
UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-01-04
Posts: 1001
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

I would normally say, "You're welcome." But in your case, I would like to say,"Thank you, too." There, that's the female military personages, mutual appreciation society adjourned for today.
As you were :!:

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

Quote:
So apologies Gleddy I was too harsh but it was out of a feeling of despair and that other thread

No worries Hugo, I really did feel your frustration on the topic and you have now felt mine! Such a contentious issue that keeps rolling out the threads... Shock

Also to add to the 'newbie' point of view, I think at my stage you find it disappointing when you find out that you actually aren't completely informed when it comes to this issue. I thought I did my research before, but then read this article (from Tommy O) and felt like I had to research all these issues all over again so that I could justify all these decisions I make when coding pages.

In the end I still think the same as I did when I started this thread... This guy is a purist, and his claim of going back to HTML 4.01 Strict seems wrong to me. There is nothing wrong with using XHTML as a text MIME type, but you must also be aware of what is actually happening here when you do so. Plus how can I not mention the importance of just good semantic, clean coding?

But thanks to all these answers from our forum members... it's good to hear from 'non-bloggers', from sources you trust.

Now I really need my morning coffee! These time differences leave me with some heavy reading when I get to the office in the morning! Laughing out loud

*EDIT - as I was writing you guys have filled another page on this topic!

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 15 weeks 2 days ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15650
Points: 2788

XHTML is dead

You state the frustration that we all feel I think when you say "when you find out that you actually aren't completely informed when it comes to this issue"

This is the problem encountered all too often, sometimes it seems impossible to get closure on a subject and move on confident that one has a good understanding of the topic.

I know that this is a constant frustration especially in this area- I would say contentious area but it's not really- I set about trying get a definitive answer on this question but despaired at so many conflicting views that had me running back and re-assessing what I thought I had established in my mind, so believe me we feel the same frustration I hanker after information that is definitive not another blog view, however I now have a much clearer idea of when to ignore some of those blogs as just re-hashed but incomplete views gleamed from other sources.

At the end of the day these purists views should be acknowledged for what they are theoretical discussions, I broke no disagreement with them whatsoever they are correct in their conclusions, but tend to ignore the fact that it is permissable to serve XHTML as text/html as we are actually writing html code as such, that there are no benefits to using xhtml as it's not being parsed by the xml parsers is not entirely correct, as we have said often enough we that use xhtml 1.0 code to a stricter discipline and are prepared, we could shove the xml prolog in change Mime type to application/xhtml+xml and be good to go, our pages will not break the moment they are presented to the xml parser.

The two most important things are that we present Semantic wellformed code that follows the guidelines for allowed elements and that we switch browsers into 'Standards Mode' rendering and if that means we have to serve up as text/html to accommodate IE6 so be it.

In all this I am quite happy and content now to move on; next subject is the true validity of the DTD and how browsers handle them, another area seemingly of much contention :roll:

Hugo

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 39 weeks 1 day ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

XHTML is dead

Hugo - as we all seem to be in agreement with this line of thought (well you and I are at least), and if no one else has any strong views to the contrary (speak now or forever hold your peace), may I suggest that you precis the key points of your recent posts on this subject into a How To topic called something like 'HTML or XHTML?' to which others can add if they wish (but without starting another repeated discussion).

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 15 weeks 2 days ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15650
Points: 2788

XHTML is dead

It would make sense Roy, I did attempt yesterday to search out all the previous threads on the subject as there were some useful comments from regulars but have failed to locate the ones I wanted much to my frustration and the more I think about it the more it looks like needing quite a bit of work to edit, paraphrase the information into something that has clarity but I'll probably give it a go and ask for input from everyone .

Lets nail this bugger down once and for all Oups


Hugo.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

gleddy
gleddy's picture
Offline
Leader
sydney, australia
Last seen: 5 years 50 weeks ago
sydney, australia
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-09-21
Posts: 596
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

I third that suggestion of chucking this topic into the "How To" section.

I am constantly visiting that section for the harder to grasp concepts and wouldn't have started 'another' xhtml/html thread if there were one, very good idea.

thanks again all on your very detailed opinions on this topic Laughing out loud I am feel I am fairly well-researched on this topic yet again.

Kenji Miyamoto
Offline
Regular
Last seen: 9 years 6 days ago
Joined: 2005-04-20
Posts: 37
Points: 0

XHTML is dead

I haven't had any trouble validating code as XHTML1.1. I pretty much learned HTML as XHTML, so I've made it really easy on myself.

On the DTD (doctype) thing, everything up to XHTML1.0 accepts it. Mozilla-based browsers don't pay attention to the content of the doctype, only to the existence of it; if you have the application/xhtml+xml MIME-type, it parses it as XML and the CSS renders properly. IE has the same case, except it doesn't understand application/xhtml+xml. The best it can do is an early HTML4 with improper CSS rendering.

gary.turner
gary.turner's picture
Offline
Moderator
Dallas
Last seen: 23 min 14 sec ago
Dallas
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2004-06-25
Posts: 9057
Points: 3026

XHTML is dead

@Kenji: Gecko, nor other browsers ignore the doctype or the meta http-equiv tag. The server response header over-rules document meta data. If you check the header, you'll find the a document with .html or .htm or other related extensions are served up as text/html unless the configuration says differently.

See http://garyblue.port5.com/webdev/xhtml/xhtmldoc.html

for an application/xhtml+xml document. View the response header. Compare to other html docs.

cheers,

gary

Unplanned code results in a tangled wad of brain-cramping confusion.

There are enough html & css demos and tutorials to be interesting. Please visit.

KnightWolfJK
KnightWolfJK's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Washington, DC
Last seen: 6 years 44 weeks ago
Washington, DC
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2003-06-10
Posts: 210
Points: 0

Well, I was looking for some

Well, I was looking for some doctype thoughts and stumbled across this post. It appears to be amazingly resilient- it almost wanders OT then gets rejuvenated at the last minute. Smile

So, in the spirit of things... Long Live HTML 2.0!!

Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Milton Keynes
Last seen: 15 weeks 6 days ago
Milton Keynes
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

Welcome back KnightWolf,

Welcome back KnightWolf, been almost 6 months since you last came here Laughing out loud

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies