I've been creating XHTML 1.0 Strict web pages that pass validation, thinking this is best. But I found two sources that say otherwise: www.hsivonen.iki.fi www.hixie.ch
Should I not make XHTML and create HTML 4.01 Strict instead?
most people here will tell you yes, because xhtml should be set as xml and it is not supported by all browsers, so adding an xhtml doctype declaration and and set is content type as text is incorrect i believe.
Last edited by LiLcRaZyFuZzY; 10-18-2005 at 12:22 PM.
It really depends upon what you are doing. XHTML has some nice features but it is not compatable with HTML. If you are not using those features and your page is for the public then by all means, publish in HTML 4.01 Strict.
“The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
—Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
Thank you both! I can't believe how fast I go an answer. The XHTML pages I've created in the past are static web pages with CSS and Javascript. I worked hard learning how to create XHTML, selling this skill to clients, and now I learn it's best not to use it. Rats!
From what I've found on the web, XHTML is today's snake oil. There's no need to use it. I feel betrayed by the teachers who taught me XHTML. I feel betrayed by the CSS books that suggest using XHTML. It's a hoax. There are no browsers that parse XML, and if they did, they'd parse HTML, too. Unless I'm adding SVG graphics, which no browser renders yet, I don't need XHTML. Flash will do fine.
From what I've found on the web, XHTML is today's snake oil. There's no need to use it. I feel betrayed by the teachers who taught me XHTML. I feel betrayed by the CSS books that suggest using XHTML. It's a hoax. There are no browsers that parse XML, and if they did, they'd parse HTML, too. Unless I'm adding SVG graphics, which no browser renders yet, I don't need XHTML. Flash will do fine.
Many thanks to Kravvitz for your help.
MSIE handles XHTML perfectly well; you just have to use a ".xml" extension.
HTML and XHTML are two different tools for two different purposes. You don't get rid of your screwdriver because it doesn't drive nails very well. For public documents on the web HTML 4.01 strict is, and will remain, the perfect and proper tool. But for certain applications XHTML is just the right thing.
Flash, on the other hand, is troublesome.
“The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
—Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
From what I've found on the web, XHTML is today's snake oil. There's no need to use it. I feel betrayed by the teachers who taught me XHTML. I feel betrayed by the CSS books that suggest using XHTML. It's a hoax. There are no browsers that parse XML, and if they did, they'd parse HTML, too. Unless I'm adding SVG graphics, which no browser renders yet, I don't need XHTML. Flash will do fine.
It's not a hoax. People are just jumping on the bandwagon without properly researching the issues involved.
Mozilla browsers, including Firefox, and Opera can parse XML. (Konqueror and Safari probably can too.) HTML 4 is not compatible with XML, so no, XML parsers can't parse HTML. That's part of why they developed XHTML.
MSIE handles XHTML perfectly well; you just have to use a ".xml" extension.
IE doesn't support the application/xhtml+xml mime-type though.
Originally Posted by Charles
HTML and XHTML are two different tools for two different purposes. You don't get rid of your screwdriver because it doesn't drive nails very well. For public documents on the web HTML 4.01 strict is, and will remain, the perfect and proper tool. But for certain applications XHTML is just the right thing.
IE doesn't support the application/xhtml+xml mime-type though..
IE doesn't recognize any MIME types. It does everything by file extension.
“The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
—Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
W3C (who set the standards) say that the next version of HTML currently under development is XHTML 2.0.
Basically the difference between HTML and XHTML (when served as HTML) is the closingm slashes in singleton tags such as images and breaks.
1) The W3C, being a non-governmental agency, sets no standards. That's why all the public identifiers in their DOCTYPEs begin with a "-" and not a "+".
2) I do wish you would bother to read the XHTML 1.0 and XML 1.0 specifications. There is a world of difference between XHTML and HTML and the two are not compatable.
“The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
—Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
1) The W3C, being a non-governmental agency, sets no standards.
There are over 200 governments in the world and probably hundreds of agencies for each. Rather than having thousands of Government agencies setting different standards for the web the various companies that create web browsers got together to create the W3C to set the standards for the web. All of the browser makers as well as other interested parties are all involved in setting these standards.
No one except the W3C can set web standards because only the W3C has the support of all of the browser makers in defining what the standards should be.
There are over 200 governments in the world and probably hundreds of agencies for each. Rather than having thousands of Government agencies setting different standards for the web the various companies that create web browsers got together to create the W3C to set the standards for the web. All of the browser makers as well as other interested parties are all involved in setting these standards.
No one except the W3C can set web standards because only the W3C has the support of all of the browser makers in defining what the standards should be.
Please, then, direct me to a standard that is set by the W3C.
“The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
—Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
XHTML sounds sexier that HTML. Maybe instead of calling it HTML4, they should have called it HTML++, which would sound more new-and-improved.
"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
~ Terry Pratchett in Nation
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by krousen56
Bookmarks