dcsimg
www.webdeveloper.com
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 152

Thread: XHTML -- Still Relevant?

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,743
    I would--I have made SVG websites, given XHTML pages .xml extensions, and, for the giggles, created webpages using custom XML languages, interpreted via XSLT.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123
    Have you (at least) ever heard of, or worked on VML?

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,743
    Heard of it, but never worked with it. I was into SVG.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123
    People who liked Vectors since the beginning, had nothing else (to work on it), except VML and XML, because the actual SVG is nothing but a W3Cs re-branded VML. Meaning, when VML was around, - SVG didn't exist.

    Regarding this, a reasonable question will rise: why didn't you use XML + VML at times when there was no other support of any sort of vector graphics except VML and when SVG didn't even exist?

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,743
    Because when I started getting into valid code (never mind anything other than HTML), SVG was already around.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,743
    On thing that XHTML has that I found HTML5 doesn't: custom character entity references!

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    On thing that XHTML has that I found HTML5 doesn't: custom character entity references!
    I don't think it was probably used enough for people to care about it. The pros of HTML5 outweigh the pros of XHTML. Perhaps one of the biggest differences I can see between the two besides the tags and closing them with a "/" is that HTML5 seems to be trying to do away with styling attributes of tags. Which is a good thing, styling something with an attribute is bad for graceful degradation. It also removed some of the styling tags that are more for styling like the <center> tag.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,743
    I dunno. When HTML5 came out, I kinda gave up trying to keep up, and stuck with XHTML.

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    I dunno. When HTML5 came out, I kinda gave up trying to keep up, and stuck with XHTML.
    You gave up on HTML5? really? for XHTML? uh.....

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    60
    Lol I agree with Justos. You know the great thing about HTML5 is that you can type your code exactly the same, like and image tag ending with a />. But it is no longer required. it can now be typed like this <img src="" >, also the declaration tag on top of the page is much easier to write. <!doctype html>. It's a pure pleasure to write it then those long over winded ones that did nothing. HTML5's header is the only one that does something.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,743
    The "Long-winded Doctypes" never bothered me in the slightest. Especially when I made custom ones for my own XML languages, and definately not when my own site is a hodgepodge of various versions of HTML (all the way from HTML 2.0 to XHTML 1.1, just for giggles).
    Last edited by Mr Initial Man; 10-11-2013 at 01:29 AM.

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    The "Long-winded Doctypes" never bothered me in the slightest. Especially when I made custom ones for my own XML languages, and definately not when my own site is a hodgepodge of various versions of HTML (all the way from HTML 2.0 to XHTML 1.1, just for giggles).
    Regardless of you wanting to stick to the past, HTML5 is going to be the way to go eventually. Browsers will drop support for others, although that probably happen for quite some time. So you don't really have anything to worry about.

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,743
    *Snarls at Internet Explorer, the sole reason XHTML never got big.*

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    29

    Relevant

    Yes Xhtml is still relevant.. XHTML documents need to be well-formed, they can be parsed using standard XML parsers—unlike HTML, which requires a lenient HTML-specific parser.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by martin183 View Post
    Yes Xhtml is still relevant.. XHTML documents need to be well-formed, they can be parsed using standard XML parsers—unlike HTML, which requires a lenient HTML-specific parser.
    Oh really?

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