Change to html 4.01?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Andrew, Mar 14, 2007.

  1. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    Hi,

    I have a 150 page site that I would like to convert from XHTML 1.0 Strict
    to HTML 4.01 Strict:

    http://www.strong-family.org

    It has fairly clean html but I need to change doctype, get rid of closed
    tags in header (link) and adjust img, br etc. Easy enough to do but for
    150 pages I was wondering if there was a tool that could do this for me?

    My other alternative is search and replace I guess.

    Thanks for your trouble,

    Andrew

    --
    Andrew Strong
    http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/
     
    Andrew, Mar 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Andrew <> wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I have a 150 page site that I would like to convert from XHTML 1.0 Strict
    > to HTML 4.01 Strict:
    >
    > http://www.strong-family.org
    >
    > It has fairly clean html but I need to change doctype, get rid of closed
    > tags in header (link) and adjust img, br etc. Easy enough to do but for
    > 150 pages I was wondering if there was a tool that could do this for me?
    >
    > My other alternative is search and replace I guess.
    >
    > Thanks for your trouble,
    >
    > Andrew


    Depends a bit on your platform perhaps, but "Tidy" has conversion
    facilities...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scripsit Andrew:

    > I have a 150 page site that I would like to convert from XHTML 1.0
    > Strict to HTML 4.01 Strict:


    Why? That's almost as pointless as the opposite conversion. XHTML 1.0 works
    well enough when you masquerade it as good old HTML by sending it as
    text/html and comply with the (in)famous Appendix C.

    Just let it be as it is. Use HTML 4.01 for new pages and for rewritten
    pages, but don't waste your time fixing something that isn't really broken.
    Any fixes, especially automatic conversions, are error-prone.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Andrew

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 14 Mar, 21:25, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > Scripsit Andrew:
    >
    > > I have a 150 page site that I would like to convert from XHTML 1.0
    > > Strict to HTML 4.01 Strict:

    >
    > Why? That's almost as pointless as the opposite conversion.


    Maybe he's been listening to the regular advice posted in this ng?

    Yes, it's "pointless", as is any conversion on the "If it ain't broke,
    don't fix it" basis. OTOH, there are more things about web development
    than merely coding one-off pages. Perhaps the OP is writing a
    tutorial, or putting forward best practices to a large team, or
    posting a portfolio site for a design house (we've criticised enough
    of those for being in "pointless XHTML"), or just wants to have a
    consistent doctype across all their pages.

    Maybe he's just worried about browsers rendering the extra "/" as
    character data? As you're so fond of reminding us, XHTML Appendix C
    does rely on an error that not all browsers demonstrate.

    It's not necessary to do this. Nor is it wrong to do it. It's not our
    place to say whether or not the OP should, especially not when we
    don't know the whole story.



    As to tools, then Tidy is good if the markup is perhaps less than
    valid. If it is well-formed XML and mostly valid XHTML, then XSLT can
    do it too -- perhaps more safely than Tidy. Just use a simple identity-
    copy stylesheet with a HTML output method.


    (I wouldn't make any real effort to do this XHTML -> HTML though. The
    inherent advantage is indeed tiny, unless you have some other reason
    to do it.)
     
    Andy Dingley, Mar 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Scripsit Andy Dingley:

    >>> I have a 150 page site that I would like to convert from XHTML 1.0
    >>> Strict to HTML 4.01 Strict:

    >>
    >> Why? That's almost as pointless as the opposite conversion.

    >
    > Maybe he's been listening to the regular advice posted in this ng?


    That's what I suspect too, and that's why I wrote that the conversion is
    pointless.

    > Perhaps the OP is writing a tutorial,
    > or putting forward best practices to a large team,


    This was about converting existing pages.

    > It's not our
    > place to say whether or not the OP should, especially not when we
    > don't know the whole story.


    You can be (or could have been) silent about the matter, but this doesn't
    mean others shouldn't comment on the idea. It's much more useful to tell
    that something shouldn't be done (if that statement is correct) than to
    describe how to do that; the latter could actually do some harm, if it helps
    someone to do something he shouldn't be doing.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Andrew

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 15 Mar, 14:21, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > the latter could actually do some harm, if it helps
    > someone to do something he shouldn't be doing.


    There is no significant reason at all why the OP _shouldn't_ do this,
    merely reasons why it's not important to. That's a difference.

    As the zeitgeist of this ng is clearly "HTML good, XHTML bad", then
    it's puzzling (to say the least) to see one of the respected regulars
    post an apparently "pro-XHTML" post that's semingly at variance with
    history. That was my real reason for posting, not the OP's original
    question.
     
    Andy Dingley, Mar 15, 2007
    #6
  7. Andrew

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Mar 16, 1:57 am, "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:
    > On 15 Mar, 14:21, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    > > the latter could actually do some harm, if it helps
    > > someone to do something he shouldn't be doing.

    >
    > There is no significant reason at all why the OP _shouldn't_ do this,
    > merely reasons why it's not important to. That's a difference.
    >
    > As the zeitgeist of this ng is clearly "HTML good, XHTML bad", then
    > it's puzzling (to say the least) to see one of the respected regulars
    > post an apparently "pro-XHTML" post that's semingly at variance with
    > history. That was my real reason for posting, not the OP's original
    > question.


    Yes, I must admit it was odd to say the least to read of Jukka, not
    supporting the change back to HTML 3\4.01. But I do agree that it
    would be a bit pointless, if the XHTML was transitional maybe, but
    it's not in this case.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
     
    Chaddy2222, Mar 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Andrew

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:

    > On 15 Mar, 14:21, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    > > the latter could actually do some harm, if it helps
    > > someone to do something he shouldn't be doing.

    >
    > There is no significant reason at all why the OP _shouldn't_ do this,
    > merely reasons why it's not important to. That's a difference.
    >
    > As the zeitgeist of this ng is clearly "HTML good, XHTML bad", then
    > it's puzzling (to say the least) to see one of the respected regulars
    > post an apparently "pro-XHTML" post that's semingly at variance with
    > history. That was my real reason for posting, not the OP's original
    > question.


    Ah, but it was not a pro XHTML post, any more than advice to a
    person who already has a fair sized old working site using a
    simple 2 col table to keep a nav on the left and the rest on the
    right is pro 'table as display'.

    Still, you are right in that someone might have a legitimate
    reason to change it to html from xhtml. You gave one or two,
    there are others too. JK is basically saying there is no point in
    going to the trouble for no good reason.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 15, 2007
    #8
  9. Andrew

    Joe (GKF) Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On 15 Mar, 14:21, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    > > the latter could actually do some harm, if it helps
    > > someone to do something he shouldn't be doing.

    >
    > There is no significant reason at all why the OP _shouldn't_ do this,
    > merely reasons why it's not important to. That's a difference.
    >
    > As the zeitgeist of this ng is clearly "HTML good, XHTML bad", then
    > it's puzzling (to say the least) to see one of the respected regulars
    > post an apparently "pro-XHTML" post that's semingly at variance with
    > history. That was my real reason for posting, not the OP's original
    > question.
    >
    >

    I read JKK's post as saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

    --
    Advice is cheap, so always give the best. - Alfred Lawson
    http://graspages.cjb.cc/
     
    Joe (GKF), Mar 16, 2007
    #9
  10. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:46:05 +0000, Joe wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On 15 Mar, 14:21, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > the latter could actually do some harm, if it helps
    >> > someone to do something he shouldn't be doing.

    >>
    >> There is no significant reason at all why the OP _shouldn't_ do this,
    >> merely reasons why it's not important to. That's a difference.
    >>
    >> As the zeitgeist of this ng is clearly "HTML good, XHTML bad", then
    >> it's puzzling (to say the least) to see one of the respected regulars
    >> post an apparently "pro-XHTML" post that's semingly at variance with
    >> history. That was my real reason for posting, not the OP's original
    >> question.
    >>
    >>

    > I read JKK's post as saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".


    Hi,

    Thanks for this (and many other!) comments. Indeed the site is not
    broken and it has been for the most part written with scrupulously
    careful XHTML 1.0 Strict.

    The site has actually been the one where I learnt to use CSS effectively
    and write semantically correct (X)HTML. But I will admit that my doubts
    about XHTML have been worn away in part by this NG (I mean this in a
    constructive way!) and especially by the recent rumbles from the W3C
    about a return to HTML.

    I shall ponder a little more. I have just spent untold hours on this site
    recently (actually my father's research and material) and will not be
    touching it again until he has new material for me to incorporate. Then I
    will rethink :)

    Thanks for all the trouble!

    Andrew

    --
    Andrew Strong
    http://www.strong-family.org
     
    Andrew, Mar 16, 2007
    #10
  11. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:03:37 +1100, Andrew wrote:

    >But I will admit that my doubts
    > about XHTML have been worn away in part by this NG (I mean this in a
    > constructive way!) and especially by the recent rumbles from the W3C
    > about a return to HTML.


    Of course I meant "my faith in XHTML has been worn away..."

    --
    Andrew Strong
    http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/
     
    Andrew, Mar 16, 2007
    #11
    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. Daniel Polansky
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    747
    Daniel Polansky
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. Q. John Chen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
    Q. John Chen
    Nov 15, 2006
  3. Marek Kurowski
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,004
    Mark A. Odell
    Aug 18, 2004
  4. Aykut Canturk
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    498
    Munna
    Jun 4, 2008
  5. Adam Akhtar
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    558
    Florian Gilcher
    Aug 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page