www.webdeveloper.com
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Xhtml & html

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Indore,MP, India
    Posts
    4

    Xhtml & html

    Can you explain what XHTML is and how it differs from HTML. What about Tranisitional and Strict Doctypes?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,406
    http://htmlhelp.com/faq/html/docs.html#about-xhtml

    Basically XHTML is obsolete, never was suitable for general purpose web design, and has been superseded by HTML 5. So the choice is HTML 4 or 5.
    Last edited by jedaisoul; 06-25-2012 at 02:59 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    15
    XHTML's more strict syntax which is better for SEO. Easy to manage .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,984
    Quote Originally Posted by kavinb3netmobi View Post
    XHTML's more strict syntax which is better for SEO. Easy to manage .
    Serious fail.
    I've switched careers...
    I'm NO LONGER a scientist,
    but now a web developer...
    awesome.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The City of Roses
    Posts
    2,503
    This may also be helpful.

    XHTML vs HTML FAQ
    for(split(//,'))*))91:+9.*4:1A1+9,1))2*:..)))2*:31.-1)4131)1))2*:3)"'))
    {for(ord){$i+=$_&7;grep(vec($s,$i++,1)=1,1..($_>>3)-4);}}print"$s\n";

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Mott View Post
    This may also be helpful.

    XHTML vs HTML FAQ
    Doesn't work. Each link just takes you to a list of unrelated threads.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The City of Roses
    Posts
    2,503
    Ahh, yes. I guess ignore the "table of contents" links, and instead just scroll down.
    for(split(//,'))*))91:+9.*4:1A1+9,1))2*:..)))2*:31.-1)4131)1))2*:3)"'))
    {for(ord){$i+=$_&7;grep(vec($s,$i++,1)=1,1..($_>>3)-4);}}print"$s\n";

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,406
    Thanks. It still seems to suggest that XHTML is only suitable if you have specific needs that serve a limited client base. It is not an alternative to the general use of html on the web.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,704
    XHTML is only "obsolete" because Internet Explorer dropped the ball. XHTML 1.x was great to work with (never got to work with XHTML 2.0, sadly).

    A lot of web developers whined that the error handling was "draconian", but in reality it was no worse than working with a programming language.

    Basically, you have to behave yourself with XHTML (not hard to do, merely make sure all elements are closed and properly nested), quotes around all attributes), while HTML allows you to write slop, and throws in a surprise or two when it comes to the DOM.

    For example, in XHTML, if you don't use <tbody> tags, you don't have a <tbody> element. In HTML, the DOM doesn't care. Boy, did that take a while to figure out. Also, in XHTML, your tags have to be written in lower-case letters, and the DOM agrees with that. In HTML, it's case-insensitive, but the DOM says all tag names are in uppercase. That was loads of fun and games, too.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The City of Roses
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Initial Man View Post
    XHTML is only "obsolete" because Internet Explorer dropped the ball.
    I think you're absolutely right. We were supposed to use the compatibility guidelines only until browsers were updated to support XHTML, but for IE, that day never came until it was already too late. XHTML was first released in 2000. IE didn't support it until IE9... in 2011.
    for(split(//,'))*))91:+9.*4:1A1+9,1))2*:..)))2*:31.-1)4131)1))2*:3)"'))
    {for(ord){$i+=$_&7;grep(vec($s,$i++,1)=1,1..($_>>3)-4);}}print"$s\n";

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,704
    I honestly think XHTML 2.0 might have gotten somewhere--not far, perhaps, but SOMEWHERE if Internet Explorer had supported XHTML. Alas.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    123
    XHTML documents must use lower case for all HTML element and attribute names. This difference is necessary because XML is case-sensitive e.g. <li> and <LI> are different tags.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    At the corner of WALK and DONT WALK
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by adumpaul View Post
    XHTML documents must use lower case for all HTML element and attribute names. This difference is necessary because XML is case-sensitive e.g. <li> and <LI> are different tags.
    And BOY did that come in handy for scripting.

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