Prevalence of XHTML?

[Neo Geshel]

It's invalid under IE7 as you appear to be applying XHTML 1.0 Appendix
C to XHTML 1.1

If you're going to do this (pointless, but not harmful if done
carefully), at least stick with XHTML 1.0 Strict

Well, DUH, of course it is invalid. Didn’t you read what I wrote?

For all non-IE browsers, it is served up as application/xhtml+xml.

Unfortunately, because of the “hacks†involved to make IE accept
application/xml (including an unacceptably long [15-20 sec] “parse waitâ€
for the transformation via xslt), the only way to get IE-based browsers
to properly view the page in any decent amount of time is to server it
up to them as text/html. Otherwise, the performance would simply be far
too low, and many people would simply assume that the entire site is
down, rather than realizing that the page is just being parsed.

So, *of course* it is invalid under IE7. There is nothing more that I
can do with browsers as badly broken as IE.

...Geshel
--
*********************************************************************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
*********************************************************************

 

[Neo Geshel]

Scripsit Benjamin Niemann:


What makes you think the DOCTYPE declaration determines whether a
document is in fact an XHTML document? In principle, it simply specifies
the DTD that the document purports to comply with. It cannot actually
_make_ a document an XHTML document, any more than a boilerplate text
"This message is certified virus free" makes anything virus free. In
practice, there is a huge number of pages that are a horrendous mix of
HTML and XHTML with lots of syntax errors, using an XHTML DOCTYPE.

You are entirely correct. I have seen some pretty scary tag soup sites
out there.

A true XHTML document would be typified by the following:
• Have an XHTML Doctype, preferably 1.0 Strict or 1.1
• Validate as that type, without any errors
• Use the UTF-8 or UTF-16 character set
• Be served with an application/xhtml+xml mime-type. It can also be
served with application/xml or text/xml, but only if the first cannot be
used.

My original request is mostly geared to the notion, “how many people are
*trying* to create XHTML sites, regardless of actual success in meeting
true XHTML conformationâ€; but I am also interested in knowing the
prevalence of “pure†XHTML sites.

...Geshel
--
***********************************************************************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
***********************************************************************

 

[Toby A Inkster]

A true XHTML document would be typified by the following: [...]
• Use the UTF-8 or UTF-16 character set

Why?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

 

[cwdjrxyz]

A true XHTML document would be typified by the following: [...]
· Use the UTF-8 or UTF-16 character set

Why?

I have written xhtml 1.1 pages using several different character sets,
and at least W3C xhtml 1.1 validation has never complained about this.
Is there some specification by the W3C that says UTF-8 or UTF-16 must
be used for some version of xhtml 1.0 or xhtml 1.1? There are several
good arguements for using UTF and some arguments for not using it in
some special cases. However one must be careful in evaluation of what
the W3C says. The W3C often uses the word "should" for things that are
nice to do, at least in many cases, but they are not absolutely
required. They use "must not" for things that are absolute taboo. For
example, some old tags are depreciated in some versions of html, but
avoiding them is not required and use of them does not get you a
validation error.

 

[Bergamot]

Is there some specification by the W3C that says UTF-8 or UTF-16 must
be used for some version of xhtml 1.0 or xhtml 1.1?

I believe W3C recommends UTF-8, but there is no requirement to do so.

 

[Andy Dingley]

The W3C often uses the word "should" for things that are nice to do,
at least in many cases, but they are not absolutely required.

Go read RFC2119

some old tags are depreciated

deprecated

Different meaning.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Bergamot:

I believe W3C recommends UTF-8, but there is no requirement to do so.

I think we should refrain from claiming that W3C (or some other
organization) recommends something unless we _know_ it does.

I have not seen any such recommendation. You could construe the _default_ as
a recommendation: XML documents are assumed to be UTF-8 or UTF-16 encoded,
unless specified otherwise.

Then there's the practical point that if you use some other encoding, you
should declare it in the XML declaration, which throws IE 6 into Quirks
mode. This has nothing to do with W3C recommendations, though. Besides, you
can specify the encoding in HTTP headers, unless the server administration
prevents that.

There's also the practical point that UTF-16 is a poor choice for web pages,
due to poor support in browsers and search engines.

 

[Bergamot]

Scripsit Bergamot:

I have not seen any such recommendation.

"Recommends" is misleading - it's a suggestion, nothing more. Here is a
reference:
http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#faq-charset

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

deprecated

Different meaning.

In the context, the meaning is the same.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Go read RFC2119

In case anyone is interested in it and does not wish to look at tons
of documents on Google, the following should be enough for most people
who are not on groups writing standards.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Network Working Group S.
Bradner
Request for Comments: 2119 Harvard
University
BCP: 14 March
1997
Category: Best Current Practice


Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
the requirements in the specification. These words are often
capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be
interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines
should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their
document:

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in
RFC 2119.

Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
level of the document in which they are used.

1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.





Bradner Best Current Practice [Page
1]

RFC 2119 RFC Key Words March
1997


5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because
a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same
item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST
be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In
the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.)

______________________________________________________________________________

deprecated

Different meaning.

Correct. I have an extra "i" in the word.

 

[Andy Dingley]

In the context, the meaning is the same.

Not at all!

Depreciation is a gradual loss of value over time (such as with some
capital asset), as an inherent part of whatever aging process it's
subject to.

Deprecation is an _externally_ applied expression of disapproval for a
feature. Typically it's also applied as a discontinuous change in status
(unlike gradual depreciation), but the crucial aspect is that it's
applied from outside.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Not at all!

Depreciation is a gradual loss of value over time (such as with some
capital asset), as an inherent part of whatever aging process it's
subject to.

That is one meaning of it; another is the same as deprecate.

 

[Greg N.]

That is one meaning of it; another is the same as deprecate.

Not a single dictionary agrees with that.
See http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=depreciate

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Not a single dictionary agrees with that.
See http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=depreciate

All of mine do.

Deprecate:

Chambers: to argue or protest against

Oxford: plead against; express wish against or disapproval of

Funk & Wagnall's: 2. To disparage or belittle; depreciate

Webster's 10th Collegiate: b: belittle; disparage


Chambers 20th Century:

depreciate: to lower the worth of; to undervalue; to disparage

Concise Oxford:

depreciate: ...; disparage; belittle

Funk & Wagnall's Standard College:

depreciate: 2. to disparage; belittle

Webster's 10th Collegiate:

depreciate: syn. see DECRY