Problem with styles converting from HTML to XHTML

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Oli Filth, Dec 13, 2004.

  1. Oli Filth

    Oli Filth Guest

    I'm in the process of converting a website from HTML 4 (Transitional) to XHTML
    Transitional. It all validates fine, but I now have a problem with the CSS
    styles thar are being inherited.

    Take a look at the sample page at http://olifilth.co.uk/test.htm.

    ==== BEGIN HTML CODE ====

    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>Test CSS in XHTML</title>
    </head>
    <body style="background-color: #666">
    <div style="color: #FFF; font-size: 24px">
    Some text that is white and 24px (and should be).
    <table><tr><td>
    Some text that is black and small (should be white and 24px ???).
    </td></tr></table>
    </div>
    </body>
    </html>

    ===== END HTML CODE =====

    Both lines of text are within a <div> element with some styles defined; the
    second line is nested within a <table><tr><td> element. In Firefox 1.0, both
    lines of text take on the styles defined in the <div> tag. However, in IE6, only
    the first line takes on the style, the second line reverts to a default format.

    Both lines took on the defined style when the document was defined as HTML 4
    (Transitional) in IE6. So which browser is showing the XHTML version correctly?

    Thanks in advance,
    Oli
     
    Oli Filth, Dec 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Oli Filth

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:55:47 GMT, Oli Filth
    <> wrote:

    >I'm in the process of converting a website from HTML 4 (Transitional) to XHTML
    >Transitional.


    Converting from HTML 4 Transitional to HTML 4.01 Strict would be a
    better use of time.

    > It all validates fine, but I now have a problem with the CSS
    >styles thar are being inherited.
    >
    >Take a look at the sample page at http://olifilth.co.uk/test.htm.
    >
    >==== BEGIN HTML CODE ====
    >
    ><?xml version="1.0"?>


    This causes IE to go into quirks mode.

    ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    >"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
    ><html>
    ><head>
    > <title>Test CSS in XHTML</title>
    ></head>
    ><body style="background-color: #666">
    > <div style="color: #FFF; font-size: 24px">
    > Some text that is white and 24px (and should be).
    > <table><tr><td>
    > Some text that is black and small (should be white and 24px ???).
    > </td></tr></table>
    > </div>
    ></body>
    ></html>
    >
    >===== END HTML CODE =====
    >
    >Both lines of text are within a <div> element with some styles defined; the
    >second line is nested within a <table><tr><td> element. In Firefox 1.0, both
    >lines of text take on the styles defined in the <div> tag. However, in IE6, only
    >the first line takes on the style, the second line reverts to a default format.


    Yep. IE6 is in quirks mode so emulates the bugs of IE5. Get rid of the
    XML declaration and IE6 will behave itself (IE5 will still get things
    wrong though).

    >Both lines took on the defined style when the document was defined as HTML 4
    >(Transitional) in IE6. So which browser is showing the XHTML version correctly?


    If were using a HTML 4 Transitional doctype that triggers standards
    mode then yes IE6 would get things right in that case.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Dec 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Oli Filth

    Oli Filth Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:55:47 GMT, Oli Filth
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I'm in the process of converting a website from HTML 4 (Transitional) to XHTML
    >>Transitional.

    >
    >
    > Converting from HTML 4 Transitional to HTML 4.01 Strict would be a
    > better use of time.
    >
    >


    I've chosen the XHTML route after reading up that XHTML 1.0 is the W3C's
    recommendation for adopting standards, according to their own website and
    others. As far as I can make out, it's basically a cleaner, stricter and more
    standardised definition of HTML 4.01, which appeals to me as an anal retentive.

    > Yep. IE6 is in quirks mode so emulates the bugs of IE5. Get rid of the
    > XML declaration and IE6 will behave itself (IE5 will still get things
    > wrong though).
    >


    Aha, indeed it does. Thank you!

    Oli
     
    Oli Filth, Dec 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Oli Filth

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Oli Filth wrote:

    > <table><tr><td>
    > Some text that is black and small (should be white and 24px ???).
    > </td></tr></table>


    IE/win has some inheritance problems inside tables.

    Try dropping the XML prologue -- that shoulf flick it into standards mode
    and you may get better results.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Dec 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Oli Filth

    Spartanicus Guest

    Oli Filth <> wrote:

    >I've chosen the XHTML route after reading up that XHTML 1.0 is the W3C's
    >recommendation for adopting standards, according to their own website


    Wrong.

    >and
    >others. As far as I can make out, it's basically a cleaner, stricter and more
    >standardised definition of HTML 4.01, which appeals to me as an anal retentive.


    http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Dec 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Oli Filth

    Neal Guest

    On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:55:47 GMT, Oli Filth
    <> wrote:

    > I'm in the process of converting a website from HTML 4 (Transitional) to
    > XHTML Transitional.


    Why?

    Your problems stem from IE's inability to handle valid XHTML. As such,
    it's really no more than an academic exercise to use XHTML at all at this
    point. It offers no extra value to most UAs in use.

    I'd work on upgrading to HTML 4.01 Strict and separating the
    decoration/presentation from the meaning/content, and putting that in an
    external CSS stylesheet. Far better use of your time.
     
    Neal, Dec 13, 2004
    #6
  7. Oli Filth

    C A Upsdell Guest

    "Neal" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:55:47 GMT, Oli Filth
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm in the process of converting a website from HTML 4 (Transitional) to
    >> XHTML Transitional.

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Your problems stem from IE's inability to handle valid XHTML.


    Why is it that, having used xHTML since it came out, I have NEVER had a
    problem with how IE handles it? I must be living a blessed life, never
    having had a problem with "IE's inability to handle valid XHTML".
     
    C A Upsdell, Dec 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Oli Filth

    C A Upsdell Guest

    "Neal" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:55:47 GMT, Oli Filth
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm in the process of converting a website from HTML 4 (Transitional) to
    >> XHTML Transitional.

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Your problems stem from IE's inability to handle valid XHTML.


    Why is it that, having used xHTML since it came out, I have NEVER had a
    problem with how IE handles it? I must be living a blessed life, never
    having had a problem with "IE's inability to handle valid XHTML".
     
    C A Upsdell, Dec 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Oli Filth

    Neal Guest

    C A Upsdell:

    > Why is it that, having used xHTML since it came out, I have NEVER had a
    > problem with how IE handles it? I must be living a blessed life, never
    > having had a problem with "IE's inability to handle valid XHTML".


    Mind you, IE can handle XHTML well provided:

    1) You serve it as text/html, which is really the wrong MIME for XHTML
    2) You omit the prolog which knocks IE into quirks

    But by doing that, you serve a bastardized version of XHTML. Why bother?

    In other words, what benefit does XHTML provide in that event?
     
    Neal, Dec 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Oli Filth

    rf Guest

    C A Upsdell wrote:
    > "Neal" <> wrote in message


    > > Your problems stem from IE's inability to handle valid XHTML.

    >
    > Why is it that, having used xHTML since it came out, I have NEVER had a
    > problem with how IE handles it? I must be living a blessed life, never
    > having had a problem with "IE's inability to handle valid XHTML".


    Then you have not been sending true XHTML to the browsers.

    IE can only accept XHTML if it is served up as HTML. If you send a page to
    IE with a MIME type of application/xhtml+xml then IE will ask you if you
    want to download it.

    Visit this page with firefox, just to reassure yourself that it is, in fact,
    a true XHTML page.
    http://juicystudio.com/mimetest/xhtmldoc.asp

    Then visit it with IE.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Oli Filth

    Oli Filth Guest

    Neal wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:55:47 GMT, Oli Filth
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm in the process of converting a website from HTML 4 (Transitional)
    >> to XHTML Transitional.

    >
    >
    > Why?


    This is what I'm in the process of investigating (i.e. seeing whether it's worth
    it). Personally, I prefer the "move towards an integrated standards" approach,
    in the hope that in the future it (as valid XML) can be used interchangeably
    with many other data-types stored as XML.

    >
    > Your problems stem from IE's inability to handle valid XHTML. As such,
    > it's really no more than an academic exercise to use XHTML at all at
    > this point. It offers no extra value to most UAs in use.
    >


    I see your point, but we all know that IE does loads of stuff wrong; that
    doesn't mean we should be content with IE-happy-crappy HTML forever :). The more
    people that move and push for the standards, the more Microsoft (and others)
    will have to pull their socks up and become standards-compliant.

    > I'd work on upgrading to HTML 4.01 Strict and separating the
    > decoration/presentation from the meaning/content, and putting that in an
    > external CSS stylesheet. Far better use of your time.


    I may change approach and do this, seeing as my website as it stands is fairly
    small and still under construction.

    Oli
     
    Oli Filth, Dec 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Oli Filth

    Oli Filth Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:
    > Oli Filth <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I've chosen the XHTML route after reading up that XHTML 1.0 is the W3C's
    >>recommendation for adopting standards, according to their own website

    >
    >
    > Wrong.
    >


    Not according to http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#need.
    >
    >>and
    >>others. As far as I can make out, it's basically a cleaner, stricter and more
    >>standardised definition of HTML 4.01, which appeals to me as an anal retentive.

    >
    >
    > http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
    >


    I'd argue with quite a few of the points put forward in that article.

    - "There's nothing to stop an author from applying the same "strictness" to HTML."

    Whilst that may be true, there's also nothing to stop someone writing a really
    crappy HTML document that a lot of browsers (i.e. IE) will still display ok.
    This hinders other browser developers because they have to be
    "backwards-compatible" with a load of web-pages written by complete amateurs (or
    generated in FrontPage, etc.) using the older unwieldy, bloated HTML standards,
    aimed at wildly non-standards-compliant nonsense UAs like IE.
    Surely as site developers we should we trying to move away from this scenario
    and towards a neater, stricter standard where everyone knows how to use the
    language?

    - "Lot's of other sites use it, so it must be good. Lot's of Lemmings are
    jumping off cliffs, do you want to be a Lemming?"

    You could apply that argument to HTML 4.01, PHP, JavaScript, anything.

    - "It's the future, I want to prepare for it now."

    Quite frankly, yes. I'd rather try and push for a stricter, well-defined
    language that fits in with the XML standard/paradigm as a whole than continue to
    use HTML (+ hacks/kludges) purely to pander to IE's inadequacies.

    - "Given that Opera has proven that it's possible to use a full blown HTML
    client onto current day mobile devices, how likely do you think it is that we'll
    see mobile devices with a XML only parser?"

    True, but it's also true that PDAs, mobiles, etc. are inherently
    resource-strapped (compared to PCs). Why waste their resources on having to
    parse incorrect HTML documents? Have you seen the speed at which Opera runs (and
    the memory it uses) on even the fastest phones, compared to the older WAP WML
    (which is XML) browsers?
    Again, surely we should be moving away from this sort of situation towards a
    cleaner, more efficient standard which is easier to develop browsers to, and
    easier to write web-pages in (in terms of the standard being well-defined).


    However, I do agree with the current problems caused by non-compliance, but
    again most of this boils down to IE not playing ball. IE doesn't support all of
    HTML 4 or CSS2 properly, does that mean we shouldn't bother to use them either?
    To say "Just say no to XHTML" seems a very luddite mind-set.

    I also agree with the fact that HTML 4.01 Strict seems an equally valid route
    for developers to go down. However, to me, XHTML (being XML, and therefore
    interoperable with a whole load of other XML stuff) seems the more sensible
    paradigm to adopt in the long-term (in a perfect world :)).

    Oli
     
    Oli Filth, Dec 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Oli Filth

    rf Guest

    Oli Filth wrote:

    > seeing as my website as it stands is fairly
    > small and still under construction.


    If it's under construction it should have been strict (html or xhtml) to
    start with.

    It's *much* harder going from transitional (assuming you have used stuff
    that requires transitional) to strict than it is going from html to xhtml.

    The former may require re-design of parts of the page. The latter is simply
    correcting the errors (missing closing tags etc) that the validator tells
    you about.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 14, 2004
    #13
  14. Oli Filth

    Oli Filth Guest

    rf wrote:
    > Oli Filth wrote:
    >
    >
    >>seeing as my website as it stands is fairly
    >>small and still under construction.

    >
    >
    > If it's under construction it should have been strict (html or xhtml) to
    > start with.
    >
    > It's *much* harder going from transitional (assuming you have used stuff
    > that requires transitional) to strict than it is going from html to xhtml.
    >
    > The former may require re-design of parts of the page. The latter is simply
    > correcting the errors (missing closing tags etc) that the validator tells
    > you about.
    >


    Thank you for the advice, I will attempt to go with Strict then.

    oli
     
    Oli Filth, Dec 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Oli Filth

    C A Upsdell Guest

    "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
    news:eTqvd.71873$...
    >C A Upsdell wrote:
    >> "Neal" <> wrote in message

    >
    >> > Your problems stem from IE's inability to handle valid XHTML.

    >>
    >> Why is it that, having used xHTML since it came out, I have NEVER had a
    >> problem with how IE handles it? I must be living a blessed life, never
    >> having had a problem with "IE's inability to handle valid XHTML".

    >
    > Then you have not been sending true XHTML to the browsers.
    >
    > IE can only accept XHTML if it is served up as HTML. If you send a page to
    > IE with a MIME type of application/xhtml+xml then IE will ask you if you
    > want to download it.


    So what? The W3C is quite content with this situation. As their FAQ says "
    XHTML 1.0 was carefully designed so that with care it would also work on
    legacy HTML user agents as well". So we can reasonably use xHTML now, warts
    and all.
     
    C A Upsdell, Dec 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Oli Filth

    Spartanicus Guest

    Oli Filth <> wrote:

    >>>I've chosen the XHTML route after reading up that XHTML 1.0 is the W3C's
    >>>recommendation for adopting standards, according to their own website

    >>
    >> Wrong.

    >
    >Not according to http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#need.


    Just the usual hullabaloo about xhtml, only a non knowledgable reader
    could interpret that as advocating serving xhtml to clients.

    >> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

    >
    >I'd argue with quite a few of the points put forward in that article.
    >
    >- "There's nothing to stop an author from applying the same "strictness" to HTML."
    >
    >Whilst that may be true, there's also nothing to stop someone writing a really
    >crappy HTML document that a lot of browsers (i.e. IE) will still display ok.
    >This hinders other browser developers because they have to be
    >"backwards-compatible" with a load of web-pages written by complete amateurs (or
    >generated in FrontPage, etc.) using the older unwieldy, bloated HTML standards,
    >aimed at wildly non-standards-compliant nonsense UAs like IE.
    >Surely as site developers we should we trying to move away from this scenario
    >and towards a neater, stricter standard where everyone knows how to use the
    >language?


    What brought on the illusion that this is even remotely related to
    xhtml? Are you really so naive to think that people will author xhtml
    any differently than html?:
    http://www.goer.org/Journal/2003/Apr/index.html#results

    >- "Lot's of other sites use it, so it must be good. Lot's of Lemmings are
    >jumping off cliffs, do you want to be a Lemming?"
    >
    >You could apply that argument to HTML 4.01, PHP, JavaScript, anything.


    I'm glad you got it, or did you?

    >- "It's the future, I want to prepare for it now."
    >
    >Quite frankly, yes. I'd rather try and push for a stricter, well-defined
    >language that fits in with the XML standard/paradigm as a whole than continue to
    >use HTML (+ hacks/kludges) purely to pander to IE's inadequacies.


    Nothing to do with xhtml again.

    >- "Given that Opera has proven that it's possible to use a full blown HTML
    >client onto current day mobile devices, how likely do you think it is that we'll
    >see mobile devices with a XML only parser?"
    >
    >True, but it's also true that PDAs, mobiles, etc. are inherently
    >resource-strapped (compared to PCs). Why waste their resources on having to
    >parse incorrect HTML documents? Have you seen the speed at which Opera runs (and
    >the memory it uses) on even the fastest phones, compared to the older WAP WML
    >(which is XML) browsers?
    >Again, surely we should be moving away from this sort of situation towards a
    >cleaner, more efficient standard which is easier to develop browsers to, and
    >easier to write web-pages in (in terms of the standard being well-defined).


    XHTML 1.x is only a reformulation of HTML into XML. No magic benefits
    result from it.

    >However, I do agree with the current problems caused by non-compliance, but
    >again most of this boils down to IE not playing ball. IE doesn't support all of
    >HTML 4 or CSS2 properly, does that mean we shouldn't bother to use them either?
    >To say "Just say no to XHTML" seems a very luddite mind-set.
    >
    >I also agree with the fact that HTML 4.01 Strict seems an equally valid route
    >for developers to go down. However, to me, XHTML (being XML, and therefore
    >interoperable with a whole load of other XML stuff) seems the more sensible
    >paradigm to adopt in the long-term (in a perfect world :)).


    Unless you actually use XML tools this "interoperable" claim is just hot
    air, and if you do use XML tools then this does not form an argument for
    *serving* xhtml to *clients*.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Dec 14, 2004
    #16
  17. Oli Filth

    Oli Filth Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:
    > Oli Filth <> wrote:
    >>- "There's nothing to stop an author from applying the same "strictness" to HTML."
    >>
    >>Whilst that may be true, there's also nothing to stop someone writing a really
    >>crappy HTML document that a lot of browsers (i.e. IE) will still display ok.
    >>This hinders other browser developers because they have to be
    >>"backwards-compatible" with a load of web-pages written by complete amateurs (or
    >>generated in FrontPage, etc.) using the older unwieldy, bloated HTML standards,
    >>aimed at wildly non-standards-compliant nonsense UAs like IE.
    >>Surely as site developers we should we trying to move away from this scenario
    >>and towards a neater, stricter standard where everyone knows how to use the
    >>language?

    >
    >
    > What brought on the illusion that this is even remotely related to
    > xhtml? Are you really so naive to think that people will author xhtml
    > any differently than html?:
    > http://www.goer.org/Journal/2003/Apr/index.html#results
    >


    I know it's not directly related to XHTML, but it was in answer to the point in
    your article stating that HTML can be written strictly too. Yes it can, but the
    standards also allow it to be badly written too. In a perfect world, browsers
    would only accept well-formed markup (in whatever language, not necessarily
    XHTML), so there'd be no ambiguities or inconsistencies for UA-developers and
    page-authors to worry about; consquently authors would be forced to write
    strict/well-formed/valid markup if they wanted their pages to render. Is that
    such a bad ideal to aim for? It may be unrealistic now or in the near future,
    but that's why new standards get proposed.

    At the moment people are able to write bad XHTML (as the article at the link has
    found); but that is because current browsers allow them to get away with it (to
    a certain extent), or even force them to (e.g. IE not supporting
    application/xhtml+xml).

    >
    >>- "Given that Opera has proven that it's possible to use a full blown HTML
    >>client onto current day mobile devices, how likely do you think it is that we'll
    >>see mobile devices with a XML only parser?"
    >>
    >>True, but it's also true that PDAs, mobiles, etc. are inherently
    >>resource-strapped (compared to PCs). Why waste their resources on having to
    >>parse incorrect HTML documents? Have you seen the speed at which Opera runs (and
    >>the memory it uses) on even the fastest phones, compared to the older WAP WML
    >>(which is XML) browsers?
    >>Again, surely we should be moving away from this sort of situation towards a
    >>cleaner, more efficient standard which is easier to develop browsers to, and
    >>easier to write web-pages in (in terms of the standard being well-defined).

    >
    >
    > XHTML 1.x is only a reformulation of HTML into XML. No magic benefits
    > result from it.
    >
    >


    As it stands, yes. But part of the XML paradigm is that documents must be
    well-formed. If they're not, the application dealing with the document is
    perfectly entitled to just give up; its parser isn't obliged to deal with dozens
    of special cases (e.g. having to infer closing tags like </p>, working out what
    to do with badly-nested tags, overlapping elements, missing <tr></tr>, etc.),
    it's allowed to just say NO. Therefore, a true XML parser could be made much
    smaller and easier to maintain than an SGML parser, so there would be a
    considerable benefit for embedded browsers with their inherently tighter
    resource restrictions.

    >>However, I do agree with the current problems caused by non-compliance, but
    >>again most of this boils down to IE not playing ball. IE doesn't support all of
    >>HTML 4 or CSS2 properly, does that mean we shouldn't bother to use them either?
    >>To say "Just say no to XHTML" seems a very luddite mind-set.
    >>
    >>I also agree with the fact that HTML 4.01 Strict seems an equally valid route
    >>for developers to go down. However, to me, XHTML (being XML, and therefore
    >>interoperable with a whole load of other XML stuff) seems the more sensible
    >>paradigm to adopt in the long-term (in a perfect world :)).

    >
    >
    > Unless you actually use XML tools this "interoperable" claim is just hot
    > air, and if you do use XML tools then this does not form an argument for
    > *serving* xhtml to *clients*.
    >


    It's not just the tools. It's also the language consistency and compatibility
    and integration with other XML-based languages, like MathML, etc. (admittedly,
    I've never used any myself, or had any need to), where there would be an
    argument for serving XHTML (or more generally, XML) to clients/users.

    --
    Oli
     
    Oli Filth, Dec 14, 2004
    #17
  18. Oli Filth

    Spartanicus Guest

    Oli Filth <> wrote:

    >I know it's not directly related to XHTML, but it was in answer to the point in
    >your article stating that HTML can be written strictly too. Yes it can, but the
    >standards also allow it to be badly written too. In a perfect world, browsers
    >would only accept well-formed markup


    Dealt with and dispelled as a bogus argument on the page that apparently
    you haven't read properly.

    >At the moment people are able to write bad XHTML (as the article at the link has
    >found); but that is because current browsers allow them to get away with it (to
    >a certain extent), or even force them to (e.g. IE not supporting
    >application/xhtml+xml).


    I'm not going to repeat here what is clearly dealt with on the page I
    provided.

    You need to make up your mind about what you are arguing about:
    1) Serving XHTML 1.0 as text/html
    2) Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml
    3) Content negotiation

    The document provides an entrance for all three positions and provides
    arguments applicable for each case.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Dec 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Oli Filth

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:37:59 GMT, Oli Filth
    <> wrote:

    >I've chosen the XHTML route after reading up that XHTML 1.0 is the W3C's
    >recommendation for adopting standards,


    Unfortunately you've chosen to rattle a particular local cage.

    I disagree completely with Steve Pugh's "Better to move to HTML strict
    instead" comment, although I have the greatest respect for his
    reasons.

    What you, and all of us, should strive for is accurate compliance to
    _some_ standard. This is useful and valuable. OTOH, it doesn't matter
    whether it's HMTL 4 Transitional or XHTML 1.0 Strict - the pros and
    cons of _which_ standard to choose of the four [*] are almost
    negligible in comparison to the benefits of just being compliant.

    Strict vs. Trans loses some deprecated markup. This markup is still
    supported though, will be supported for the forseeable future, and
    doesn't cause problems. I'm still waiting to hear of one good useful
    reason why Strict is "better" than Transitional for new authoring, and
    it's certainly not worth doing as a retro-fit.

    XHTML has some advantages for giving you XML in the authoring stream
    and some potential for content management techniques that rely on it.
    IMHO, for my projects, this is itself sufficient reason. XHTML also
    has the "Appendix C" issues (threads passim). Now IMHO these issues
    are over-rated and they just don't cause problems in the real world.



    [*] HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0, either as Transitional or Strict. Ignore
    3.2, ignore frames, ignore XHTML 1.1 and especially 2.0.
    --
    Smert' spamionam
     
    Andy Dingley, Dec 15, 2004
    #19
    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. darrel
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    397
    Lamont Adams
    Sep 9, 2004
  2. cmonsta
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    627
    Patrick Olurotimi Ige
    Mar 8, 2005
  3. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,373
    Joe Kesselman
    Mar 24, 2006
  4. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    552
    xhtml champs
    Aug 1, 2011
  5. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,073
    xhtml champs
    Aug 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page