HTML or XHTML?

[krousen56]

I read (but didn't fully understand) the W3C FAQs on HTML and XHTML. If I understand what I read, my static web pages, that use CSS, Javascript and simple forms, and aren't complicated web applications, are better if written as HTML 4.01 Strict. I could use XHTML 1.0, but there's no advantage.

XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 sound exciting with the XML features I can add, but how easy is it to use? How do I specify a file's mime type? Is it the file extension or server that does the work?

[Kravvitz]

XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 sound exciting with the XML features I can add, but how easy is it to use?

Basically, XHTML 1.1 is just a modularized version of XHTML 1.0 Strict.
XHTML 2.0 is still in development.

How do I specify a file's mime type?

That depends on the web server. Web servers do handle that automatically for common mime-types, though.

Is it the file extension or server that does the work?

I'm not sure what you mean.
Server-side languages, like PHP and ASP, can override the default mime-type. Otherwise, the server sends whichever mime-type is associated with the file's extension.

[krousen56]

I don't mean to be a pest, and please for give my ignorance. But what I mean by adding an extension is if I make a document XHTML 1.1, will it need a ".xml", ".xhtml" or ".html" file extension?

I'll need to look up what modular means and how to take advantage of it.

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

*.html or *.htm

[krousen56]

Now I'm confused. If XHTML 1.1 can't be a text/html mime type, doesn't a file extension of ".html" or ".htm" say it is?

[Robert Wellock]

The extension means nothing it's the MIME: http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/beck/ uses *.xht and serves XHTML to Appropriate browsers (ignore that fact I am not doing full content-negation), as do any of the files I have ending in *.htm or *.php on my server, you could even have *.dog and it could be XHTML.

XHTML 1.1 SHOULD be served as application/xhtml+xml and yes both Opera and the latest Firefox do support SVG.

[felgall]

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.

[krousen56]

Fantastic Robert! Thank you. I started reading O'Rielly's "HTML and XHTML: the definitive guide" to better understand xhtml. If you have any sources or books you can point me to, I'd appreciate it.

[Charles]

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.

[Mr Initial Man]

Actually, your close to the real truth about XHTML. Take a close look at the specification. It's not XHTML 1.0, it's XHTML™ 1.0.

Is XHTML proprietary, then?

[Albatross]

No, XHTML is not a proprietary standard.

As for bashing XHTML, I use it in all my projects. Though I use XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and serve it up wtih the text/html type. As long as you are using the ISO-8859-1 encoding type, even Netscape 4 will render it perfectly.

[Charles]

As long as you are using the ISO-8859-1 encoding type, even Netscape 4 will render it perfectly.

And as long as you follow 17 other restrictions, yes. But that's not XHTML it's XHTML + HTML and if you're going to so that then why not just use HTML?

[Albatross]

It's a personal preference, really. Not to mention that it's easy to switch to 1.1 later on without having to go back and close empty tags (like IMG) afterword.

Only thing I would have to remove are target attributes (like target="_blank") should I choose to upgrade. That and changing the DOCTYPE.

[rebelgurl031792]

can anyone help me make a web page using html for a school project or tell me at least tell me the order of the codes and the codes show me an example send me the link for an example thats all i need to know thanks write back

[Charles]

Strictly speaking, all you need is

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<title></title>

but it is common to start with

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">
<meta name="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>

</body>
</html>

And read Mr. Raggett's fine tutorials on the subject. ( http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/ ) The venerable Mr. Raggett wrote the HTML 3.2 spec and worked on the 4.01 and gave us Tidy. We all owe this man very much.

And lastly, make friends with The Validator ( http://validator.w3.org/ ).