what is better strict or xhtml?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by windandwaves, Jun 21, 2005.

  1. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Hi Gurus

    What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:

    xhtml (
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">) or html strict (

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    )
    I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
    xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas
    windandwaves, Jun 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. windandwaves

    Els Guest

    windandwaves wrote:

    > Hi Gurus


    Gurus isn't here atm [1]. Can I help you instead?

    > What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:
    >
    > xhtml (
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">) or html strict (
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    >
    > )
    > I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
    > xhtml. What would you recommend?


    You could have both if you want:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

    I'm not saying it's better than Strict HTML though. Others can explain
    exactly why, I only know that not all browsers understand XHTML - IIRC
    IE needs to be tricked to think it's really HTML instead of XHTML.


    [1] not my own joke - I just repeated it :)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Jun 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. windandwaves

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <> said:

    > I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
    > xhtml.


    What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

    > What would you recommend?


    Use Strict, regardless of whether you use HTML or XHTML. I don't see any
    benefit in using XHTML, and as Els mentioned, you have to pretend it's
    HTML anyway.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Jun 22, 2005
    #3
  4. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:
    > Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <> said:
    >
    >> I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable
    >> to go for xhtml.

    >
    > What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?


    Because i thought a document could only be A or B, just the wrong
    assumption. Are you saying you could have a strict and transitional
    document? So, I can stay with strict. I think the hype is all about xml.
    Xml being a really smart and easy way to "package" data platform
    independent.

    >> What would you recommend?

    >
    > Use Strict, regardless of whether you use HTML or XHTML. I don't see
    > any benefit in using XHTML, and as Els mentioned, you have to pretend
    > it's HTML anyway.


    Yep, will stay with strict.
    windandwaves, Jun 22, 2005
    #4
  5. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Els wrote:
    > windandwaves wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Gurus

    >
    > Gurus isn't here atm [1]. Can I help you instead?


    Thank you Els, you are a Guru in my book.
    windandwaves, Jun 22, 2005
    #5
  6. windandwaves

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <> said:

    > Because i thought a document could only be A or B, just the wrong
    > assumption.


    That depends what A and B are. XHTML vs HTML and Strict vs Transitional
    are 2 completely separate issues.

    > Are you saying you could have a strict and transitional
    > document?


    No, but an HTML document can be either Strict or Transitional. And an
    XHTML document can be either Strict or Transitional[1].

    > Yep, will stay with strict.


    HTML, presumably. :)

    [1] OK, so only true for XHTML1.0, not 1.1. But since XHTML1.1 *must* be
    served as XHTML, and IE doesn't understand XHTML, XHTML1.1 is simply not
    practical on the WWW at the moment, and probably won't be for a number
    of years yet.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Jun 22, 2005
    #6
  7. windandwaves

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, windandwaves quothed

    > I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
    > xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas


    Use xhtml if you're planning on making your markup erotic.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Jun 22, 2005
    #7
  8. windandwaves

    Steve Pugh Guest

    windandwaves wrote:

    > What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:
    >
    > xhtml (
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">) or html strict (
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    >
    > )
    > I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
    > xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas


    Of those two I would use HTML 4.01 Strict. But those are not the only
    two options. Both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 exist in Strict and
    Transitional flavours. Whether you use HTML 4.01 Strict or XHTML 1.0
    Strict is largely a matter of personal taste. But either way use
    Strict.

    Steve
    Steve Pugh, Jun 22, 2005
    #8
  9. windandwaves

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:22:57 +1200, "windandwaves"
    <> wrote:

    >What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:


    Why lower yourself to the standards of most professionals ? :cool:


    >I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
    >xhtml.


    First of all, there are four choices here, not two. Or more plainly, a
    choice of HTML 4.01 / XHTML 1.0 _and_ a separate choice of Strict /
    Transitional.

    Most useful of all is simply to be valid as _something_. Pick one
    randomly, but at least achieve it. The biggest benefits are from this,
    not which one you pick.

    Second biggest benefit is in using a doctype that puts IE into
    standards-based rendering, not quirks mode.


    XHTML needs to be served as text/html to get anywhere useful on the
    existing web (Appendix C etc.) So this also means that some useful XML
    features of it, such as namespacing, aren't viable at present. If
    you're into SMIL, SVG or RDF metadata, then you might find it acceptable
    to serve your XHTML properly as XML, even though that somewhat limits
    your audience.

    XHTML is useful internally because it allows XML tools within your CMS.
    It's also useful to have XML output, because that allows your output to
    be an input to some other CMS task. It's also a good long-term idea to
    start having your content as cleanly well-formed XML

    Transitional is useful because it allows the <a target="..." >
    attribute. Some will disagree as to its value, but if you want it,
    that's how you get it.

    Strict is not particularly useful. It's no magic bullet to make your
    markup beautiful. You can still write garbage in Strict. What's useful
    is the _attitude_ to using Strict - i.e. dumping <font> and you can
    achieve that equally well by marking up sensibly and still labelling it
    with a Transitional doctype.
    Andy Dingley, Jun 22, 2005
    #9
  10. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > With neither quill nor qualm, windandwaves quothed
    >
    >> I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable
    >> to go for xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas

    >
    > Use xhtml if you're planning on making your markup erotic.


    brilliant!
    windandwaves, Jun 22, 2005
    #10
  11. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:

    Thank you Andy, that really helped me understand the big picture with
    realistic ideas. Great. I am sure that lots of people will find that
    explanation handy.
    windandwaves, Jun 22, 2005
    #11
  12. windandwaves

    jake Guest

    In message <>, Andy Dingley
    <> writes
    [snip]

    >
    >Transitional is useful because it allows the <a target="..." >
    >attribute. Some will disagree as to its value, but if you want it,
    >that's how you get it.


    That's one way to do it.

    Or you can stay 'Strict' by using javascript to set the target.

    >

    [snip]

    regards.
    --
    Jake
    ( .... just a spam trap.)
    jake, Jun 22, 2005
    #12
  13. "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > With neither quill nor qualm, windandwaves quothed
    >
    > > I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go

    for
    > > xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas

    >
    > Use xhtml if you're planning on making your markup erotic.
    >



    Wouldn't that need xxxhtml ?

    --
    Richard
    Richard Rundle, Jun 22, 2005
    #13
  14. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    jake wrote:
    .............
    > Or you can stay 'Strict' by using javascript to set the target.

    ............
    That is what I do, it works magically. But it is a little crazy to use
    Javascript for something as simply as that.
    windandwaves, Jun 23, 2005
    #14
  15. windandwaves

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Rundle quothed

    > > Use xhtml if you're planning on making your markup erotic.
    > >

    >
    >
    > Wouldn't that need xxxhtml ?


    I said "erotic" not "explicit". Furthermore, I find the former more
    stimulating, pound-for-pound.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Jun 23, 2005
    #15
  16. windandwaves

    Dennis Guest

    On 22 Jun 2005 Neredbojias wrote in alt.html

    > With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Rundle quothed
    >
    >> > Use xhtml if you're planning on making your markup erotic.
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> Wouldn't that need xxxhtml ?

    >
    > I said "erotic" not "explicit". Furthermore, I find the former more
    > stimulating, pound-for-pound.
    >


    Nice to see you're still a perv. :eek:)

    How's your health these days?

    --
    Dennis
    Dennis, Jun 23, 2005
    #16
  17. Neredbojias wrote:
    > With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Rundle quothed
    >
    >
    >>>Use xhtml if you're planning on making your markup erotic.

    >>
    >>Wouldn't that need xxxhtml ?

    >
    > I said "erotic" not "explicit". Furthermore, I find the former more
    > stimulating, pound-for-pound.

    You can say that again.
    --
    Edwin van der Vaart
    http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
    http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Under construction
    Edwin van der Vaart, Jun 23, 2005
    #17
  18. windandwaves

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Dennis quothed

    > > I said "erotic" not "explicit". Furthermore, I find the former more
    > > stimulating, pound-for-pound.
    > >

    >
    > Nice to see you're still a perv. :eek:)


    Always. It's just so much fun.

    > How's your health these days?


    Sucks. As you get older you wheeze alot more and your arm gets tired
    much quicker.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Jun 25, 2005
    #18
    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. Peter L.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    316
    Peter L.
    Oct 20, 2003
  2. Rob Roberts
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,789
    Rob Roberts
    Jan 20, 2006
  3. Christopher R

    xhtml strict is being very stict why?

    Christopher R, Oct 1, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    789
  4. Brendan

    Need help with strict XHTML

    Brendan, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    388
    Brendan
    Nov 3, 2003
  5. Tom

    XHTML Strict and Script

    Tom, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    656
    Woolly Mittens
    Nov 15, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page