BBC website now entirely valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

Discussion in 'HTML' started by 123Jim, Jul 24, 2010.

  1. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    123Jim, Jul 24, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    "123Jim" <> wrote in message
    news:i2f5mh$fcd$-september.org...
    >I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    >Strict.
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868
    > Impressive!
    > Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


    ah, ok, on further clicking I find it's ~largely~ XHTML strict .. still a
    good effort showing the others the way! Good to see my license fee is being
    used for ~some~ good.
    123Jim, Jul 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 123Jim wrote:

    > I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    > Strict.
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868
    > Impressive!
    > Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


    Except that it is still being sent as:
    Content-Type: text/html
    instead of
    Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml
    which means certain browsers (whose initials are Internet Explorer) will
    interpret it as tag soup. If sent correctly, IE (all versions) will
    simply "offer to download the file."

    According to:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Adoption
    (see paragraph beginning with: "Most web browsers have mature support")
    this *might* be cured with the advent of IE9. This browser, however,
    won't play on XP, so expect years until it becomes common.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jul 24, 2010
    #3
  4. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:i2f88p$2qp$-september.org...
    > 123Jim wrote:
    >
    >> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    >> Strict.
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868
    >> Impressive!
    >> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?

    >
    > Except that it is still being sent as:
    > Content-Type: text/html
    > instead of
    > Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml
    > which means certain browsers (whose initials are Internet Explorer) will
    > interpret it as tag soup. If sent correctly, IE (all versions) will
    > simply "offer to download the file."
    >
    > According to:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Adoption
    > (see paragraph beginning with: "Most web browsers have mature support")
    > this *might* be cured with the advent of IE9. This browser, however,
    > won't play on XP, so expect years until it becomes common.
    >


    Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little hack to
    allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed the Content-Type
    to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8. .. and a pox on those
    people using old browsers :))
    123Jim, Jul 24, 2010
    #4
  5. On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:00:18 +0100, 123Jim wrote:

    > Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little hack
    > to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed the
    > Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8. .. and a
    > pox on those people using old browsers :))



    Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.
    Jeremy J Starcher, Jul 24, 2010
    #5
  6. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    "Jeremy J Starcher" <> wrote in message
    news:wAG2o.134$...
    > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:00:18 +0100, 123Jim wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little hack
    >> to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed the
    >> Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8. .. and a
    >> pox on those people using old browsers :))

    >
    >
    > Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.


    Yes .. I understand it's the web server's business to send the HTTP header
    ... but I'm not sure how that exactly works at the browser end .. why does it
    even need that since all the info should be contained in the web-page?

    The dark recesses of my brain is reminding me that someone said we should
    stick with HTML 4.01 strict unless we have control of the web server to
    insist it sends the appropriate header for XHTML. .. also xhtml may never
    make it as the standard as HTML5 is on the way.
    123Jim, Jul 24, 2010
    #6
  7. 123Jim wrote:

    > "Jeremy J Starcher" wrote:
    >> 123Jim wrote:
    >>> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little
    >>> hack to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed
    >>> the Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8.
    >>> .. and a pox on those people using old browsers :))

    >>
    >> Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.

    >
    > Yes .. I understand it's the web server's business to send the HTTP
    > header .. but I'm not sure how that exactly works at the browser end
    > .. why does it even need that since all the info should be contained
    > in the web-page?


    There are zillions of web pages that do not contain a Content-Type,
    because the author is not aware of it (and other items).

    Do you have Firefox's Developer Toolbar installed? Visit the main BBC
    page and look at: Information > View Response Headers


    Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 20:42:48 GMT
    Server: Apache
    Etag: "1280004140"
    Cache-Control: max-age=60, private
    Vary: Accept-Encoding
    Content-Encoding: gzip
    Age: 27
    Content-Length: 16837
    Content-Type: text/html <--- the HTTP header, not the HTML

    200 OK

    ISTR that even if the meta element says text/html but the HTTP header
    says application/xhtml+xml - the HTTP header will win out.

    > The dark recesses of my brain is reminding me that someone said we
    > should stick with HTML 4.01 strict unless we have control of the web
    > server to insist it sends the appropriate header for XHTML. .. also
    > xhtml may never make it as the standard as HTML5 is on the way.


    Most regulars 'round here would recommend HTML 4.01 Strict.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jul 24, 2010
    #7
  8. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:i2fjt4$di8$-september.org...
    > 123Jim wrote:
    >
    >> "Jeremy J Starcher" wrote:
    >>> 123Jim wrote:
    >>>> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little
    >>>> hack to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed
    >>>> the Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8.
    >>>> .. and a pox on those people using old browsers :))
    >>>
    >>> Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.

    >>
    >> Yes .. I understand it's the web server's business to send the HTTP
    >> header .. but I'm not sure how that exactly works at the browser end
    >> .. why does it even need that since all the info should be contained
    >> in the web-page?

    >
    > There are zillions of web pages that do not contain a Content-Type,
    > because the author is not aware of it (and other items).
    >
    > Do you have Firefox's Developer Toolbar installed? Visit the main BBC
    > page and look at: Information > View Response Headers
    >
    >............................................>


    thanks .. I did not realise Developer toolbar had this!

    <............................................>
    > Most regulars 'round here would recommend HTML 4.01 Strict.
    >


    I have heard that a few times here and there .. good to know I'm still in
    the loop :)
    123Jim, Jul 24, 2010
    #8
  9. 123Jim

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jul 24, 11:51 am, "123Jim" <>
    wrote:
    > I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    > Strict.http://www.bbc.co.uk/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868
    > Impressive!
    > Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


    No, this is not the right way to go, because it is not served
    properly. If you validate at W3C and select "show source" and "verbose
    output" under "more options" you find content type is "text/html".
    Thus the page is being parsed as just html, not xhtml, and you would
    better use html 4.01 strict in the first place. To serve the page
    properly as xhtml, you must associate some extension such as .xhtml
    with a xhtml mime type since .html is used by most servers for
    ordinary html pages. If you do this, the page is parsed as xml, which
    is extremely strict. A tiny error such as not closing a tag can give
    you an error report from the parser rather than a view of the page.
    This is because an xhtml page must be capable of handling xml
    properly. A valid xhtml page served properly will be displayed
    properly by most modern browsers. The glaring exception is that no IE
    browser including IE8 can display an xhtml page served properly, but
    there have been rumors that IE9 may finally display a properly served
    xhtml page. Thus you must provide a html page for IE. One way to do
    this is to use a php include at the very top of the page. Using header
    exchange, the computer asks the server if it will accept xhtml. If so,
    the xhtml page is used. If not, the xhtml page is re-written using
    regular expressions, etc. to make it valid html 4.01 strict, for
    example.

    Furthermore xhtml 1.0 (3 versions) is now quite old, and xhtml 1.1 has
    been around quite a while. Since xhtml 1.1 is not much more difficult
    than html 1.0, I can not see the point in using xhtml 1.0 at this late
    date. In fact a higher version of xhtml has had some work done on it.

    I did validate http://www.bbc.co.uk/ at the W3C css validator. This
    gives 18 css errors and 2700 warnings for the page.

    I would guess that about 99% of pages that claim to be xhtml are
    nothing of the sort. The w3c validator only checks to see if the code
    validates as xhtml. It only will tell you if it is served properly as
    xhtml if you find the proper mime type for it is used by the server
    under "content type" at the W3C validator. Apparently many are not
    aware of this.
    cwdjrxyz, Jul 24, 2010
    #9
  10. 123Jim

    dorayme Guest

    In article <i2f5mh$fcd$-september.org>,
    "123Jim" <> wrote:

    > I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    > Strict.
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868




    > Impressive!


    I suppose so, it is an improvement from just two days back, but
    two out of the three urls still don't quite make the finishing
    line. I guess people are working on it all the time and whovere
    does is not in touch with whoever it is that checks to see it is
    valid before it goes on line or something like that?


    > Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


    Why would mere syntactical validity make you think this? *This*
    is not much to do with the reasons for choosing 4.01 Strict.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 25, 2010
    #10
  11. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <i2f5mh$fcd$-september.org>,
    > "123Jim" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    >> Strict.
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868

    >
    >
    >
    >> Impressive!

    >
    > I suppose so, it is an improvement from just two days back, but
    > two out of the three urls still don't quite make the finishing
    > line. I guess people are working on it all the time and whovere
    > does is not in touch with whoever it is that checks to see it is
    > valid before it goes on line or something like that?
    >
    >
    >> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?

    >
    > Why would mere syntactical validity make you think this?

    ......

    If a 'big' popular website chooses a standard . it might be an indication
    that this is the way the wind is blowing generally .. Standards make it
    better for everyone. webdevs, browser devs, etc.. Compare to the other web
    portal type sites the BBC at least displays an awareness and willingness to
    work to standards .. good for them.
    123Jim, Jul 25, 2010
    #11
  12. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    "123Jim" <> wrote in message
    news:i2gtop$3a4$-september.org...
    >
    > "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <i2f5mh$fcd$-september.org>,
    >> "123Jim" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    >>> Strict.
    >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Impressive!

    >>
    >> I suppose so, it is an improvement from just two days back, but
    >> two out of the three urls still don't quite make the finishing
    >> line. I guess people are working on it all the time and whovere
    >> does is not in touch with whoever it is that checks to see it is
    >> valid before it goes on line or something like that?
    >>
    >>
    >>> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?

    >>
    >> Why would mere syntactical validity make you think this?

    > .....
    >
    > If a 'big' popular website chooses a standard . it might be an indication
    > that this is the way the wind is blowing generally .. Standards make it
    > better for everyone.


    .....
    Also I have a good website here on how to suck an egg :)))
    123Jim, Jul 25, 2010
    #12
  13. 123Jim

    dorayme Guest

    In article <i2gtop$3a4$-september.org>,
    "123Jim" <> wrote:

    > "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <i2f5mh$fcd$-september.org>,
    > > "123Jim" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    > >> Strict.
    > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >> Impressive!

    > >
    > > I suppose so, it is an improvement from just two days back, but
    > > two out of the three urls still don't quite make the finishing
    > > line. I guess people are working on it all the time and whovere
    > > does is not in touch with whoever it is that checks to see it is
    > > valid before it goes on line or something like that?
    > >
    > >
    > >> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?

    > >
    > > Why would mere syntactical validity make you think this?

    > .....
    >
    > If a 'big' popular website chooses a standard . it might be an indication
    > that this is the way the wind is blowing generally .. Standards make it
    > better for everyone. webdevs, browser devs, etc.. Compare to the other web
    > portal type sites the BBC at least displays an awareness and willingness to
    > work to standards .. good for them.


    There are at least two distinct questions here. One is about
    validity and I have made a comment about this.

    The other is about which standard to follow. That the BBC and
    just about everyone else have gone to other than 4.01 Strict
    certainly shows which Mother Goose is thought a thing of the
    past. But trendiness and popularity is not an indication of
    wholesome goodness.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 25, 2010
    #13
  14. 123Jim

    dorayme Guest

    In article <i2gujt$6at$-september.org>,
    "123Jim" <> wrote:

    > Also I have a good website here on how to suck an egg :)))


    ?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 25, 2010
    #14
  15. 123Jim

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2010-07-24, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article <i2f5mh$fcd$-september.org>,
    > > "123Jim" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
    > >> Strict.
    > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >> Impressive!

    > >
    > > I suppose so, it is an improvement from just two days back, but
    > > two out of the three urls still don't quite make the finishing
    > > line. I guess people are working on it all the time and whovere
    > > does is not in touch with whoever it is that checks to see it is
    > > valid before it goes on line or something like that?

    >
    > They've also done some rather nasty things with negative margins on
    > floats which I don't really approve of and are causing me to take a long
    > hard look at the spec.


    Right neg margins on right floats produce scrollbars, left neg
    margins on left floats can serve to make the left of things
    partly or wholly disappear. Some counterintuitive things happen
    with floats with neg margins so it is an interesting thing to
    look at.

    A suspicious motive of the BBC would be as a hack to position
    stuff when things are not quite working out in looks the way the
    authors wants. I have not looked hard at what they do.

    But let us know if you find anything interesting in the specs
    about this matter.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 25, 2010
    #15
  16. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <i2gujt$6at$-september.org>,
    > "123Jim" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Also I have a good website here on how to suck an egg :)))

    >
    > ?
    >


    You are not familiar with the phrase: 'Teach your granny to suck eggs'?
    On reading my reply to you earlier I found that it could have been construed
    as teaching granny to suck eggs as I am sure you are well up on the value of
    web standards etc. not that you are someone's granny, and you are not
    required to literally know how to suck eggs .. why grannies are up on that I
    don't know. :))
    123Jim, Jul 25, 2010
    #16
  17. 123Jim wrote:
    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"<> wrote in message
    > news:i2fjt4$di8$-september.org...
    >> 123Jim wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Jeremy J Starcher" wrote:
    >>>> 123Jim wrote:
    >>>>> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little
    >>>>> hack to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed
    >>>>> the Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8.
    >>>>> .. and a pox on those people using old browsers :))
    >>>>
    >>>> Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.
    >>>
    >>> Yes .. I understand it's the web server's business to send the HTTP
    >>> header .. but I'm not sure how that exactly works at the browser end
    >>> .. why does it even need that since all the info should be contained
    >>> in the web-page?

    >>
    >> There are zillions of web pages that do not contain a Content-Type,
    >> because the author is not aware of it (and other items).
    >>
    >> Do you have Firefox's Developer Toolbar installed? Visit the main BBC
    >> page and look at: Information> View Response Headers
    >>
    >> ............................................>

    >
    > thanks .. I did not realise Developer toolbar had this!
    >
    > <............................................>
    >> Most regulars 'round here would recommend HTML 4.01 Strict.
    >>

    >
    > I have heard that a few times here and there .. good to know I'm still in
    > the loop :)
    >
    >



    Here you can point your IE (any version) here to test
    application/xhtml+xml content type without any file extension hinting...

    http://littleworksstudio.lws.lan/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0

    I bet you get a download dialog box.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 25, 2010
    #17
  18. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    news:i2hkav$7hs$-september.org...
    > 123Jim wrote:
    >> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"<> wrote in message
    >> news:i2fjt4$di8$-september.org...
    >>> 123Jim wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Jeremy J Starcher" wrote:
    >>>>> 123Jim wrote:
    >>>>>> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little
    >>>>>> hack to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed
    >>>>>> the Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8.
    >>>>>> .. and a pox on those people using old browsers :))
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes .. I understand it's the web server's business to send the HTTP
    >>>> header .. but I'm not sure how that exactly works at the browser end
    >>>> .. why does it even need that since all the info should be contained
    >>>> in the web-page?
    >>>
    >>> There are zillions of web pages that do not contain a Content-Type,
    >>> because the author is not aware of it (and other items).
    >>>
    >>> Do you have Firefox's Developer Toolbar installed? Visit the main BBC
    >>> page and look at: Information> View Response Headers
    >>>
    >>> ............................................>

    >>
    >> thanks .. I did not realise Developer toolbar had this!
    >>
    >> <............................................>
    >>> Most regulars 'round here would recommend HTML 4.01 Strict.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have heard that a few times here and there .. good to know I'm still in
    >> the loop :)
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Here you can point your IE (any version) here to test
    > application/xhtml+xml content type without any file extension hinting...
    >
    > http://littleworksstudio.lws.lan/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0
    >
    > I bet you get a download dialog box.
    >


    You're right, thanks .. but you gave me the wrong URL . you meant:
    http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0
    123Jim, Jul 25, 2010
    #18
  19. 123Jim wrote:
    > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote in message
    > news:i2hkav$7hs$-september.org...


    >>
    >>
    >> Here you can point your IE (any version) here to test
    >> application/xhtml+xml content type without any file extension hinting...
    >>
    >> http://littleworksstudio.lws.lan/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0
    >>
    >> I bet you get a download dialog box.
    >>

    >
    > You're right, thanks .. but you gave me the wrong URL . you meant:
    > http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0
    >
    >


    Oops, you're correct caught with my undies showing! That's the internal
    local mirror, if you can get to that one then I have a firewall problem ;-)


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 25, 2010
    #19
  20. 123Jim

    dorayme Guest

    In article <i2hftb$1rs$-september.org>,
    "123Jim" <> wrote:

    > "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <i2gujt$6at$-september.org>,
    > > "123Jim" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Also I have a good website here on how to suck an egg :)))

    > >
    > > ?
    > >

    >
    > You are not familiar with the phrase: 'Teach your granny to suck eggs'?
    > On reading my reply to you earlier I found that it could have been construed
    > as teaching granny to suck eggs as I am sure you are well up on the value of
    > web standards etc. not that you are someone's granny, and you are not
    > required to literally know how to suck eggs .. why grannies are up on that I
    > don't know. :))


    I am very familiar with the expression. You meant it well and I
    am sending a team of bearers with gifts to you. There will be 4
    sheep, 1 cow, 3 pigs, and a big bag of dried Molokhia (from which
    you can make an Egyptian Greens Soup which I am recently having a
    go at. My mummy used to make it).

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 25, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. melledge
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    437
    melledge
    May 3, 2006
  2. Michael Sparks
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    318
  3. Magnus Lie Hetland

    Python Challenge on BBC

    Magnus Lie Hetland, Aug 11, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    282
    Michael Hoffman
    Aug 13, 2005
  4. +mrcakey

    OT: BBC website

    +mrcakey, May 23, 2008, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    340
    dorayme
    May 23, 2008
  5. Kenn White
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    172
    David Dorward
    Aug 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page