www.webdeveloper.com
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 152

Thread: XHTML -- Still Relevant?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    I wouldn't even consider HTML 4.01 to be "finished" yet. Not until every browser with an incomplete implementation of the spec has a 0% share.
    Jon Wire

    thepointless.com | rounded corner generator

    I agree with Apple. Flash is just terrible.

    Use CODE tags!

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,716
    Well, in THAT case, HTML 2.0 isn't finished--I use Lynx for testing, and it doesn't support the <img> element!

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    Well, in THAT case, HTML 2.0 isn't finished--I use Lynx for testing, and it doesn't support the <img> element!
    I'd say Lynx has an effective market share of 0% ...
    Jon Wire

    thepointless.com | rounded corner generator

    I agree with Apple. Flash is just terrible.

    Use CODE tags!

  4. #94
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13
    The approach we've been taking is to use html5 polyglot. Basically XHTML, but with HTML5 head tags etc, ready for moving over to HTML5.

    It's easy to do what you like on your own site, but I have to instruct a lot of third parties so they need a spec to work against. It is easier for us to say XHTML, with parts of HTML5 than HTML5 except x y and z.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by svidgen View Post
    I'd say Lynx has an effective market share of 0% ...
    Now you're just nitpicking.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    Now you're just nitpicking.
    Nay nay:

    Quote Originally Posted by svidgen View Post
    I wouldn't even consider HTML 4.01 to be "finished" yet. Not until every browser with an incomplete implementation of the spec has a 0% share.
    I stated the requirement up front! I mean hell, if you're going to seriously consider Lynx as a browser, you need to consider everything with 0% market share: Word, Excel, Window Media Player, my toaster ...
    Jon Wire

    thepointless.com | rounded corner generator

    I agree with Apple. Flash is just terrible.

    Use CODE tags!

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,716
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_&#37;28web_browser%29

    Lynx IS a browser--yes, a text-only browser. Yes, a browser that's old as dirt. But a web browser nonetheless. You are nitpicking. Nitpicking, sez I!

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Nitpicking, I am not. I'm joking, of course, about the toaster. But, the broad definition of a web browser, one which allows one to include lynx alongside other browsers with a straight face, also includes any piece of software that can establish a TCP connection and relay the return. Even telnet is therefore a web browser.

    Point is, only browsers with a significant market share are worth considering. And of those, none fully support any complete standard in a consistent manner.
    Jon Wire

    thepointless.com | rounded corner generator

    I agree with Apple. Flash is just terrible.

    Use CODE tags!

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by svidgen View Post
    Nitpicking, I am not. I'm joking, of course, about the toaster. But, the broad definition of a web browser, one which allows one to include lynx alongside other browsers with a straight face, also includes any piece of software that can establish a TCP connection and relay the return. Even telnet is therefore a web browser.

    Point is, only browsers with a significant market share are worth considering. And of those, none fully support any complete standard in a consistent manner.
    What part of HTML 2.0 do modern browsers not support? *Question of complete curiosity* And question: Can Word/Excel/WMP read HTML? Because Lynx--for the most part--can.
    Last edited by Mr Initial Man; 04-13-2012 at 10:51 PM.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    What part of HTML 2.0 do modern browsers not support? *Question of complete curiosity* And question: Can Word/Excel/WMP read HTML? Because Lynx--for the most part--can.
    Hehe ... OK. Had I the time, I'm willing to bet I could find some compliance issues. Though, I suppose it's possible that all significant modern browsers fully support HTML 2.0.

    In any case: Yes, Word and Excel can read some HTML. WMP ... maybe not. Though, I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if it could.
    Jon Wire

    thepointless.com | rounded corner generator

    I agree with Apple. Flash is just terrible.

    Use CODE tags!

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Jon Wire

    thepointless.com | rounded corner generator

    I agree with Apple. Flash is just terrible.

    Use CODE tags!

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by svidgen View Post
    Though, I suppose it's possible that all significant modern browsers fully support HTML 2.0.
    Then again... it's... HTML 2.0. Museum piece, anyone?


    Oh... I have FOUND it--at least, I think I have. Does anyone know what the urn="" attribute did? It was for <a> elements.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    Well, that's encouraging for me. Maybe there will be a use for HTML 4.01 for a while yet.
    Considering the fact that: (...)
    the "doctype" used for the so called "HTML5" (which is nothing but "HTML") is not as one would imagine "<!doctype html5>" but "<!doctype html>" -and there's no doubt about that - just in case someone got confused about - says that: "There is no other HTML Standard - but HTML!"
    That's all.
    And what does it mean?
    It means that: Whatever browser you are targeting for backwards compatibility - you will be using one and a single exact doctype which is:
    <!Doctype HTML> for all targets.

    What other news is old?
    None! - Everything is new to the latecomers who thought they were doing html while using xhtml syntax and other barbaric doctype nonsense.


    For best results as we all know, - all internet coding should be done in standards mode regardless of a browser version and when talking about "which doctype should I use?" - the <!Doctype HTML> does exactly that.

    Starting with IE 4 [the first browser who introduced standards], probably not ending with IE10, the <!Doctype HTML> declaration will force them to standards mode and the standards level supported by the given release version.
    (...henceforth) that's a pretty dumb decision, since the so called html5 is a: Browser Version Free type of thing. And Google coders were not dumb for using (since at least three or 4 years ago) a simple and plain <!doctype> up until html 5 came in.
    They, most probably knew, way back then, this same thing I'm "rediscovering" here today.
    Last edited by Troy III; 04-14-2012 at 06:41 AM.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,716
    Ooooooooooooookay, where'd you read that? Citation please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy III View Post
    ... and other barbaric doctype nonsense.
    You see, what some people don't seem to realize--right up until they work with XML--is that the Document Type Definition performs a very important function that has never been performed by anything else, not schemas, not the HTML5 doctype.

    HTML Code:
    <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd" [
    	<!ENTITY deg "&#x00B0;">
    	<!ENTITY oq "&#x201C;">
    	<!ENTITY cq "&#x201D;">
    ]>
    That's an SVG 1.1 Doctype that I used in a page--but do you see something odd about it? Here's the original:
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">

    Here's the one I used:
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd" [
    	<!ENTITY deg "&#x00B0;">
    	<!ENTITY oq "&#x201C;">
    	<!ENTITY cq "&#x201D;">
    ]>
    Character Entity References!

    XHTML 1.0 links to a document type definition, which defines these,;XHTML5 does NOT, so you have to go through the effort of memorizing their numerical equivalents or skip any characters you can't type on your keyboard altogether.

    Doing something like
    HTML Code:
    <!DOCTYPE html [<!--CERs Here-->]>
    will cause the validator to throw errors, because now it's expecting the COMPLETE document type definition (I've written them. Even ElementML was surprisingly long). SVG has no character entity references, but because of its doctype's structure I was able to add some in.

    HTML5's doctype doesn't allow that, and if you don't have a doctype at all, you're out of luck. Oh, I know, "You don't need a doctype" and yadda yadda yadda, but here's a point I made in my book:

    1. &#38;#8730;
    2. &#x221A;
    3. &radic;


    They all amount to the same thing, but which do you want to use for writing "(X)HTML5=√(All Headaches)"?
    Last edited by Mr Initial Man; 04-14-2012 at 04:53 PM.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    Ooooooooooooookay, where'd you read that? Citation please.



    You see, what some people don't seem to realize--right up until they work with XML--is that the Document Type Definition performs a very important function that has never been performed by anything else, not schemas, not the HTML5 doctype.

    HTML Code:
    <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd" [
    	<!ENTITY deg "&#x00B0;">
    	<!ENTITY oq "&#x201C;">
    	<!ENTITY cq "&#x201D;">
    ]>
    That's an SVG 1.1 Doctype that I used in a page--but do you see something odd about it? Here's the original:
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">

    Here's the one I used:
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd" [
    	<!ENTITY deg "&#x00B0;">
    	<!ENTITY oq "&#x201C;">
    	<!ENTITY cq "&#x201D;">
    ]>
    Character Entity References!

    XHTML 1.0 links to a document type definition, which defines these,;XHTML5 does NOT, so you have to go through the effort of memorizing their numerical equivalents or skip any characters you can't type on your keyboard altogether.

    Doing something like
    HTML Code:
    <!DOCTYPE html [<!--CERs Here-->]>
    will cause the validator to throw errors, because now it's expecting the COMPLETE document type definition (I've written them. Even ElementML was surprisingly long). SVG has no character entity references, but because of its doctype's structure I was able to add some in.

    HTML5's doctype doesn't allow that, and if you don't have a doctype at all, you're out of luck. Oh, I know, "You don't need a doctype" and yadda yadda yadda, but here's a point I made in my book:

    1. &#x221A;
    2. &radic;


    They all amount to the same thing, but which do you want to use for writing "(X)HTML5=√(All Headaches)"?
    This ... "issue" has never been a problem for me. I use &rarr; ,&larr;, and so on without problems. And in cases where I need many special characters, I won't be typing them out by hand anyway. I'll be letting PHP or .NET perform the conversion for me -- or I'll just serve my document in UTF-8.

    Doctype isn't meaningless altogether. But the "html5" doctype is perfectly fine for most circumstances, if not all. Gmail, which serves my mail with all sorts of fancy characters and other neat tricks does just fine with the doctype. No need to define a list of entities anywhere ...

    Or, am I overlooking the issue in my haste?
    Jon Wire

    thepointless.com | rounded corner generator

    I agree with Apple. Flash is just terrible.

    Use CODE tags!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles