Views on XHTML 1.1 site

Discussion in 'HTML' started by j1mb0jay, Feb 20, 2007.

  1. j1mb0jay

    j1mb0jay Guest

    Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first time I
    have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.

    http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6

    --
    Regards JJ (UWA)
     
    j1mb0jay, Feb 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. j1mb0jay

    J.O. Aho Guest

    j1mb0jay wrote:
    > Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first
    > time I have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
    >
    > http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6
    >


    Javascript page is horrible.

    --

    //Aho
     
    J.O. Aho, Feb 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. j1mb0jay

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On Feb 20, 10:51 am, "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:
    > Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first time I
    > have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
    >
    > http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6


    It's served as text/html so it's not proper XHTML 1.1. If it was
    served properly then IE wouldn't be able to display it. In other
    words, theres' no practical way to use XHTML 1.1 correctly on the web.
    And virtually no practical reason why you would want to.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Feb 20, 2007
    #3
  4. Scripsit Steve Pugh:

    > It's served as text/html so it's not proper XHTML 1.1. If it was
    > served properly then IE wouldn't be able to display it. In other
    > words, theres' no practical way to use XHTML 1.1 correctly on the web.
    > And virtually no practical reason why you would want to.


    But the W3C makes a big noise about it! :) See http://www.w3.org main page
    right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1 Second Edition.

    Since XHTML 1.1 was an exercise in futility, I lack words to describe this
    madness. They don't tell what they changed, but probably the dark orange
    areas a indicate changes. They make a record in bogosity by including text
    in dark red on dark orange background.

    Regarding the page about which feedback was requested, it once again
    confirms the principle that "Valid HTML!" icons and relatives are much worse
    than useless and quite often simply incorrect (and sometimes blatant lies).
    Clicking on the icon shows a message "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!".

    This time, it's actually an easy-to-fix error: instead of wrapping <h3>
    inside <a>, which is invalid (<a> is text level, <h3> is block level), you
    can nest them the other way around,
    <h3><a ...>...</a></h3>
    (Using <h3> is semantically wrong, or at least questionable, since the page
    has just two levels of headings - they should thus be <h1> and <h2>, not
    <h2> and <h3>.)

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 20, 2007
    #4
  5. On Feb 20, 2:38 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > But the W3C makes a big noise about it! :) Seehttp://www.w3.orgmain page
    > right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1 Second Edition.


    Which says that XHTML 1.1 SHOULD be served as text/html... and
    references a document which says it SHOULD NOT be served as text/html
    to support that.

    Genius.

    (Longer version at http://blog.dorward.me.uk/2007/02/20/xhtml11.html )

    --
    David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
     
    David Dorward, Feb 20, 2007
    #5
  6. David Dorward wrote:
    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >
    >> But the W3C makes a big noise about it! See http://www.w3.org main page
    >> right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1 Second Edition.

    >
    > Which says that XHTML 1.1 SHOULD be served as text/html... and
    > references a document which says it SHOULD NOT be served as text/html to
    > support that.


    The other major change is that it adds a Schema to validate your X(HT)ML
    against. All XHTML 1.1 documents must continue to carry a DOCTYPE though,
    and conform to the DTD.

    Overall, I think I am *for* allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html,
    provided it meets the compatibility guidelines in XHTML 1.0 Appendix C.

    David, on your web page you write:

    | Additionally, as far as I know, nothing added in XHTML 1.1 (i.e. Ruby
    | annotation) is supported by legacy user agents. So there seems little
    | point in allowing it to be served as text/html.

    As it happens, Ruby annotation is *only* supported by Internet Explorer
    5.0+ for both Windows and Macintosh -- precisely the sort of browsers that
    benefit from allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html.

    (With a bit of CSS trickery, you can fake Ruby support in other browsers.)

    Yes, it would be nice if Internet Explorer supported XHTML properly, and
    sending it as application/xhtml+xml serves as a useful stick to beat
    Microsoft with, to encourage them to add proper XHTML support to their
    browser.

    You could argue that sending XHTML as text/html prevents you from taking
    advantage of browsers' stricter parsing methods. But browser makers are
    free to apply these strict parsing methods to XHTML documents served as
    text/html -- there is *nothing* in any specification that even suggests
    that they should not.

    Allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html *finally* gives the CJK
    community a standards-compliant way of serving ruby annotated text to a
    user agent that supports ruby annotated text.

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

    * = I'm getting there!
     
    Toby A Inkster, Feb 20, 2007
    #6
  7. j1mb0jay

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Feb 20, 4:51 am, "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:
    > Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first time I
    > have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
    >
    > http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6
    >
    > --
    > Regards JJ (UWA)


    There are 3 validation errors when checked as xhtml 1.1 at the W3C
    html validator. The page is not served as html which is application/
    xhtml+xml and not text/html as served. Thus the page as served is just
    html. If it were properly served as xhtml it would not view on IE. If
    served as true xhtml, you will have to put a mime type for xhtml on
    the server such as associate the extension .xhtml or.xml with
    application/xhtml+xml, since the mime type for html is already taken
    as text/html. Then the page served as xhtml will not view on IE. You
    must then either work on the header to detect if the page will accept
    xhtml at all and automatically rewrite the page from xhtml to html
    4.01 strict, using regular expressions and such if xhtml support is
    not detected in the header exchange. Or you must write both an xhtml
    page for IE and a few older browsers and an xhtml page for modern
    browsers including Opera, Firefox, Netscape, Seamonkey, etc. Then an
    introduction short html page would allow the user to select the page
    to use. Or you could use Microsoft conditional comments to route to
    the html page for IE and to the xhtml page for everything else. This
    would of course miss a few older browsers. Don't blame the W3C for
    this mess. The blame falls on Microsoft with their outmoded IE6
    browser which does not support true xhtml, and neither doe their new
    IE7! Yet Microsoft likely contributes more funds to the W3C than
    anyone else and serves on several of their committees.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 20, 2007
    #7
  8. Scripsit Toby A Inkster:

    >> Additionally, as far as I know, nothing added in XHTML 1.1 (i.e. Ruby
    >> annotation) is supported by legacy user agents. So there seems little
    >> point in allowing it to be served as text/html.

    >
    > As it happens, Ruby annotation is *only* supported by Internet
    > Explorer
    > 5.0+ for both Windows and Macintosh -- precisely the sort of browsers
    > that benefit from allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html.


    IE has _limited_ Ruby support - to a useful extent, and Ruby can be used
    rather safely on the web, since lack of support is not serious (Ruby is
    designed to degrade gracefully on non-supporting browsers, provided of
    course that authors use Ruby properly); faulty support would be serious.

    But this has really nothing to do with XHTML 1.1 or XHTML in general. You
    can simply include Ruby markup in a normal HTML markup and have it processed
    by IE. Technically, of course, your document won't conform to the HTML 4.01
    specification, but that's a formality only. The point is that _support_ to
    Ruby does not depend on XHTML.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 20, 2007
    #8
  9. j1mb0jay

    j1mb0jay Guest

    j1mb0jay wrote:
    > Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first
    > time I have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
    >
    > http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6

    Thank you for the replies you all gave. The reason I am using XHTML 1.1 is
    that I have some coursework to do.

    The javascript page will be changed i do agree that it looks rather poor.

    What decleration should i use rather than text/html to allow for the propper
    use of the required document type.
    --
    Regards JJ (UWA)
     
    j1mb0jay, Feb 20, 2007
    #9
  10. j1mb0jay

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 20 Feb, 18:04, "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:

    > What decleration should i use rather than text/html to allow


    You should use a content-type of text/html, because anything else
    breaks IE. The only viable alternative is to serve it dynamically,
    according to what each browser claims to accept. Now you're having to
    look at dynamic features for what should only need to be a simple
    static site.

    The doctype you use is probably best as HTML 4.01 Strict, but you
    could use XHTML 1.0 Strict reasonably and validly (if not usefully).
    What you can't do is to serve XHTML 1.1 by the same simple route.

    If your course requires XHTML 1.1, then change course. They're
    clueless and their teaching is untrustworthy.
     
    Andy Dingley, Feb 20, 2007
    #10
  11. j1mb0jay

    j1mb0jay Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On 20 Feb, 18:04, "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:
    >
    >> What decleration should i use rather than text/html to allow

    >
    > You should use a content-type of text/html, because anything else
    > breaks IE. The only viable alternative is to serve it dynamically,
    > according to what each browser claims to accept. Now you're having to
    > look at dynamic features for what should only need to be a simple
    > static site.
    >
    > The doctype you use is probably best as HTML 4.01 Strict, but you
    > could use XHTML 1.0 Strict reasonably and validly (if not usefully).
    > What you can't do is to serve XHTML 1.1 by the same simple route.
    >
    > If your course requires XHTML 1.1, then change course. They're
    > clueless and their teaching is untrustworthy.


    I paid a lot of money for this course. I am not going to chance. If they
    think 1.1 is a good way to start learning HTML with closing every tag and
    using CSS, then i have to aggree.
    Not my fault browers dont follow rules.
    --
    Regards JJ (UWA)
     
    j1mb0jay, Feb 21, 2007
    #11
  12. j1mb0jay

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 21 Feb, 15:25, "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:

    > > If your course requires XHTML 1.1, then change course. They're
    > > clueless and their teaching is untrustworthy.

    >
    > I paid a lot of money for this course. I am not going to chance.


    What is the course?

    > If they think 1.1 is a good way to start learning HTML


    Then they'd still be wrong. Exactly how much do you think you have to
    pay someone before "clueless" miraculously becomes "right" ?

    > with closing every tag


    There's another error.

    I'm sure they didn't teach that, and hopefully that's not even what
    you meant, but if you can still post such a comment without realising
    how glaringly wrong it is, then they're failing to teach you the
    fundamentals.
     
    Andy Dingley, Feb 21, 2007
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:

    > I paid a lot of money for this course. I am not going to chance. If they
    > think 1.1 is a good way to start learning HTML with closing every tag and
    > using CSS, then i have to aggree.


    Hi JJ,
    PMFJI. Personally, I agree with the advice that HTML 4.01 Strict is,
    with rare exceptions, still the best choice for new Web pages. XHTML is
    difficult to use (as has been discussed here and elsewhere) while it
    benefits very few Web authors. I also agree that if your teacher has
    told you to use XHTML 1.1 in your course, then life will be a whole lot
    easier for you if that's what you use. You can hardly go into the class
    and say "I'm going to disregard your instructions because some people on
    the Internet said you're wrong." But someday (IMHO) you'll do well to
    learn the difference between HTML and XHTML and why we disagree with
    your teacher. Just reading the discussions of the two in this newsgroup
    and comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html will shed a lot of light on the
    situation.

    > Not my fault browers dont follow rules.


    True! And if your interest in (X)HTML is purely academic, then you can
    ignore the consequences of browsers' disregard of standards. But if you
    have a practical interest in (X)HTML (e.g. you want to get a job as a
    Web Geek) then that kind of thinking will only get you as far as the
    unemployment line.

    Good luck with the course

    --
    Philip
    http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
    Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
     
    Nikita the Spider, Feb 21, 2007
    #13
  14. j1mb0jay

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 21 Feb, 18:05, Nikita the Spider <> wrote:

    > I also agree that if your teacher has
    > told you to use XHTML 1.1 in your course, then life will be a whole lot
    > easier for you if that's what you use.


    I disagree. The _course_ will be easier, and that might well be enough
    reason to do just that. However it's still not a useful thing to be
    taught and one day you have to face the real world (or else get
    tenure!)
     
    Andy Dingley, Feb 21, 2007
    #14
  15. j1mb0jay

    Roy A. Guest

    On 20 Feb, 11:51, "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:
    > Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first time I
    > have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
    >
    > http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6


    If you are using some XHTML 1.1 pages on a site, mark them as XHTML
    1.1 and offer som additional ways to view the content.

    Status quo on XHTML vs. HTML (and so called "HTML 5") is:

    http://www.w3.org/2006/11/HTML-WG-charter.html
     
    Roy A., Feb 21, 2007
    #15
  16. j1mb0jay

    j1mb0jay Guest

    Nikita the Spider wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I paid a lot of money for this course. I am not going to chance. If


    UWA(see mail header) Master's Computer Science - AI (I'm in 1st Year) sadly
    the goverments state the cost of this is £3,000 per year (4 year course)

    >> they think 1.1 is a good way to start learning HTML with closing
    >> every tag and using CSS, then i have to aggree.

    >
    > Hi JJ,
    > PMFJI. Personally, I agree with the advice that HTML 4.01 Strict is,
    > with rare exceptions, still the best choice for new Web pages. XHTML
    > is difficult to use (as has been discussed here and elsewhere) while
    > it benefits very few Web authors.


    I feel the only reason it dosn't benift people is because brower's don't
    "like" to follow the standards.

    >I also agree that if your teacher
    > has told you to use XHTML 1.1 in your course, then life will be a
    > whole lot easier for you if that's what you use. You can hardly go
    > into the class and say "I'm going to disregard your instructions
    > because some people on the Internet said you're wrong."


    I agree hint why i made the website in the first place.

    > But someday
    > (IMHO) you'll do well to learn the difference between HTML and XHTML
    > and why we disagree with your teacher. Just reading the discussions
    > of the two in this newsgroup and comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
    > will shed a lot of light on the situation.


    Started reading already....

    >
    >> Not my fault browers dont follow rules.

    >
    > True! And if your interest in (X)HTML is purely academic, then you can
    > ignore the consequences of browsers' disregard of standards. But if
    > you have a practical interest in (X)HTML (e.g. you want to get a job
    > as a Web Geek) then that kind of thinking will only get you as far as
    > the unemployment line.


    I agree with you, sadly I am not planning on being a webgeek but nowadays
    can programs really afford not to have some kind of web output. Although
    shh/telnet(puTTy) solve alot of "my" problems.
    I belive AI is the way forward.

    >
    > Good luck with the course


    Thank you very much.

    --
    Regards JJ (UWA)
     
    j1mb0jay, Feb 21, 2007
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:

    > On 21 Feb, 18:05, Nikita the Spider <> wrote:
    >
    > > I also agree that if your teacher has
    > > told you to use XHTML 1.1 in your course, then life will be a whole lot
    > > easier for you if that's what you use.

    >
    > I disagree. The _course_ will be easier, and that might well be enough
    > reason to do just that. However it's still not a useful thing to be
    > taught and one day you have to face the real world (or else get
    > tenure!)


    Hi Andy,
    I thought I was clear but I guess I wasn't. =) I hope the OP understood
    that I meant "life at the moment" (i.e. the OP's course) rather than the
    rest of his Web authoring life.

    --
    Philip
    http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
    Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
     
    Nikita the Spider, Feb 21, 2007
    #17
  18. j1mb0jay

    j1mb0jay Guest

    J.O. Aho wrote:
    > j1mb0jay wrote:
    >> Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first
    >> time I have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
    >>
    >> http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6
    >>

    >
    > Javascript page is horrible.


    Removed. I agree, just seeing how I could change the CSS file on the fly.

    --
    Regards JJ (UWA)
     
    j1mb0jay, Feb 21, 2007
    #18
  19. j1mb0jay

    j1mb0jay Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:
    > On Feb 20, 10:51 am, "j1mb0jay" <> wrote:
    >> Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first
    >> time I have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
    >>
    >> http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6

    >
    > It's served as text/html so it's not proper XHTML 1.1. If it was
    > served properly then IE wouldn't be able to display it. In other
    > words, theres' no practical way to use XHTML 1.1 correctly on the web.
    > And virtually no practical reason why you would want to.


    Say if I was writing XHTML to go to my own browser, which read XHTML fine??

    >
    > Steve


    --
    Regards JJ (UWA)
     
    j1mb0jay, Feb 21, 2007
    #19
  20. j1mb0jay

    j1mb0jay Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Scripsit Steve Pugh:
    >
    >> It's served as text/html so it's not proper XHTML 1.1. If it was
    >> served properly then IE wouldn't be able to display it. In other
    >> words, theres' no practical way to use XHTML 1.1 correctly on the
    >> web. And virtually no practical reason why you would want to.

    >
    > But the W3C makes a big noise about it! :) See http://www.w3.org
    > main page right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1
    > Second Edition.
    > Since XHTML 1.1 was an exercise in futility, I lack words to describe
    > this madness. They don't tell what they changed, but probably the
    > dark orange areas a indicate changes. They make a record in bogosity
    > by including text in dark red on dark orange background.
    >
    > Regarding the page about which feedback was requested, it once again
    > confirms the principle that "Valid HTML!" icons and relatives are
    > much worse than useless and quite often simply incorrect (and
    > sometimes blatant lies). Clicking on the icon shows a message "This
    > page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!".
    > This time, it's actually an easy-to-fix error: instead of wrapping
    > <h3> inside <a>, which is invalid (<a> is text level, <h3> is block
    > level), you can nest them the other way around,
    > <h3><a ...>...</a></h3>
    > (Using <h3> is semantically wrong, or at least questionable, since
    > the page has just two levels of headings - they should thus be <h1>
    > and <h2>, not <h2> and <h3>.)


    Thank you for this information, do you suggest any other site or "API's" to
    read rather than W3C (this was the suggested site to use for the course)
    --
    Regards JJ (UWA)
     
    j1mb0jay, Feb 21, 2007
    #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. DigiAl
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    692
    Hugh Beyer
    Jun 21, 2004
  2. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    903
  3. chronos3d
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    787
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 5, 2006
  4. Usha2009
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,141
    Usha2009
    Dec 20, 2009
  5. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    xhtml champs
    Aug 1, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page