question xhtml transitional or strict !?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Did you read <http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml> ?

If he did, he did not understand it.

 

[Bergamot]

Newer web applications are very likely to need to
use an XHTML doctype.

Need? Not hardly.

Some sites only "need" to use an XHTML doctype because that's what their
off-the-shelf blog or CMS uses (that's an arbitrary decision by the
system author--there's nothing in use that actually *requires* it) and
it's too much trouble to change it.

Say again why XHTML is actually needed?

 

[mynameisnobodyodyssea]

Say again why XHTML is actually needed?

Hi Berg,
Sorry to repeat, an example for needing
an XHTML doctype is Google maps with polylines
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/#XHTML_and_VML
Just as an example, if there is a large site that will have
a Google map on one page it is better to have all pages
with an XHTML doctype, because the layout could
be rendered differently in some browsers (even with the same style
sheet)
for an XHTML doctype than for an HTML doctype,
and it is better that all pages in a site have a similar look.
Also if using an XHTML doctype it is easier to
reuse code for mobile phone browsers needing
application/xhtml+xml.

Again, sorry to repeat, an HTML doctype just feels
going back in time.

My point is that the decision XHTML or HTML
should (...or may...) be taken according to the website.

 

[Bergamot]

it is better to have all pages
with an XHTML doctype, because the layout could
be rendered differently in some browsers (even with the same style
sheet)
for an XHTML doctype than for an HTML doctype,

I have never seen such a thing. Show an example, please, or some
authoritative article that supports this theory.

and it is better that all pages in a site have a similar look.

That has nothing to do with the doctype, but I'm not the first to tell
you that.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

<[email protected]


Did you read <http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml> ?

With some the Earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Tim Streater]

With some the Earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary.

The flatness or otherwise of the earth is subject to proof, unlike the
HTML vs. XHTML issue which looks to me rather more like a religious
issue.

You'll have to do better than that.

 

[rf]

The flatness or otherwise of the earth is subject to proof, unlike the
HTML vs. XHTML issue which looks to me rather more like a religious
issue.

You'll have to do better than that.

What about the *fact* that the most used browser out there simply does not
understand XHTML?

That is not religious, or even subjective. That is an objectively verifiable
*fact*.

 

[Tim Streater]

What about the *fact* that the most used browser out there simply does not
understand XHTML?

That is not religious, or even subjective. That is an objectively verifiable
*fact*.

That sounds a bit more like it.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

That sounds a bit more like it.

Where have you been? This fact and others, like for *most* applications
the namespace XML features of XHTML are not used have been presented
multiple times in this thread.

It is not religion just simple the reality that except for a very small,
and I mean small subset of applications (MathML is an example) HTML is
best suited for creating webpage, AND has the addend benefit of being
supported by all browsers.

 

[mynameisnobodyodyssea]

What about the *fact* that the most used browser out there simply does not
understand XHTML?

If you look at an article from 2005
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx
in the Microsoft Internet Explorer blog you can see
that IE was modified to best handle XHTML doctype with content type
text/html

Browsers and websites evolve all the time.

If you look in your browser with 'view source'
at the doctype of URLs you can see
that newer-than-medieval versions of IE
have no problems with XHTML doctype served
as content-type text/html.

There are many differences in which browsers
handle various things, even when the doctype is HTML.
Why imply that by using an HTML doctype all
will be perfect and a page will be perfectly displayed in all
browsers?

 

[Michael Fesser]

..oO([email protected])

If you look at an article from 2005
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx
in the Microsoft Internet Explorer blog you can see
that IE was modified to best handle XHTML doctype with content type
text/html

Browsers and websites evolve all the time.

XHTML delivered as text/html is no XHTML - it's still HTML with a fancy
syntax and browsers still use their old tag soup parsers, so it doesn't
make much of a difference at all.

With real XHTML instead, delivered with an appropriate content type,
modern browsers will use an XML parser, but then its IE again which
doesn't understand it.

If you look in your browser with 'view source'
at the doctype of URLs you can see
that newer-than-medieval versions of IE
have no problems with XHTML doctype served
as content-type text/html.

Even NN4 can handle such pseudo-XHTML.

There are many differences in which browsers
handle various things, even when the doctype is HTML.

The only doctype-based difference is between quirks mode and standards
mode.

Why imply that by using an HTML doctype all
will be perfect and a page will be perfectly displayed in all
browsers?

Who implied that? Wasn't it you who implied that by using XHTML all
would be fine, search engines could easier get the content, validators
could easier check the stuff and so on?

Micha

 

[mynameisnobodyodyssea]

Who implied that? Wasn't it you who implied that by using XHTML all
would be fine, search engines could easier get the content, validators
could easier check the stuff and so on?

Micha

My point is very simple: when there is a website that does not work
very well and which uses an HTML doctype
I would prefer at least to think that it was the choice of the
web developers of that site, not other people's,
that the web developers of the site considered the fact
that there is the newer XHTML doctype which uses more consistent
rules
to help bots (like search engines and validators) and browsers.

So... nobody implied that an HTML doctype is perfect.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

My point is very simple: when there is a website that does not work
very well and which uses an HTML doctype

If a web developer is not competent to compose in HTML, what make you
feel that he would be any more successful in XHTML? Especially where the
most used browser does support XHTML unless server improperly as
text/html. When served as text/html XHTML is just parsed as bad HTML and
losses the features that XHTML is to offer.

I would prefer at least to think that it was the choice of the
web developers of that site, not other people's,
that the web developers of the site considered the fact
that there is the newer XHTML doctype which uses more consistent
rules
to help bots (like search engines and validators) and browsers.

As you have been told already your assertion that XHTML is somehow
better for bots, search search engines, and validators is unfounded.

So... nobody implied that an HTML doctype is perfect.

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Especially where the most used browser does support XHTML ..

Doesn't ? ;-)

 

[dorayme]

The flatness or otherwise of the earth is subject to proof, unlike the
HTML vs. XHTML issue which looks to me rather more like a religious
issue.

The flatness of the earth is subject to proof only in the sense
that a reasonable case can be made out. In the case of whether
the general author of websites, for most normally known purposes,
should use an HTML doctype or an XHTML doctype, a reasonable case
has been made out.

Religious issues are quite different and almost invariably
involve claims that are not the least bit understood by any
party. Another difference is that in the case of religion, the
laymen are led by high priests whereas in the HTML/XHTML case,
they are led by their noses.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Doesn't ? ;-)

Yep, "doesn't", but then the whole argument "doesn't" matter...at least
how this thread is progressing.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:08:32 GMT
scribed:

My point is very simple: when there is a website that does not work
very well and which uses an HTML doctype
I would prefer at least to think that it was the choice of the
web developers of that site, not other people's,
that the web developers of the site considered the fact
that there is the newer XHTML doctype which uses more consistent
rules
to help bots (like search engines and validators) and browsers.

You might find it interesting to know that the xml parser, in some browsers
at least, does not work as well (-meaning as validly and accurately) as the
original (sgml) parser does. No, I'm not going into a detailed explanation
because it would undoubtedly just degrade into a long, fruitless pedantic
argument, but I have proven it sufficiently to myself to accept it, so take
the statement as you will.