what is better strict or xhtml?

E

Els

windandwaves said:
Hi Gurus
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
xhtml.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?
What would you recommend?
Click to expand...

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.
 
W

windandwaves

Mark said:
What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

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.
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, will stay with strict.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
Because i thought a document could only be A or B, just the wrong
assumption.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
N

Neredbojias

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
Click to expand...

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

Steve Pugh

windandwaves said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
A

Andy Dingley

What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
W

windandwaves

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.
 
J

jake

In message <[email protected]>, Andy Dingley
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.
Click to expand...

That's one way to do it.

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

regards.
 
R

Richard Rundle

Neredbojias said:
With neither quill nor qualm, windandwaves quothed


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


Wouldn't that need xxxhtml ?
 
W

windandwaves

jake wrote:
.............
Or you can stay 'Strict' by using javascript to set the target.
Click to expand...
............
That is what I do, it works magically. But it is a little crazy to use
Javascript for something as simply as that.
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Rundle quothed
Wouldn't that need xxxhtml ?
Click to expand...

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

Dennis

On 22 Jun 2005 Neredbojias wrote in alt.html
With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Rundle quothed


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

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

How's your health these days?
 
E

Edwin van der Vaart

Neredbojias said:
With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Rundle quothed



I said "erotic" not "explicit". Furthermore, I find the former more
stimulating, pound-for-pound.
Click to expand...
You can say that again.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

XHTML - how extend/create ELEMENT body in my DTD? 0
XHTML question 8
XHTML Strict - Is this right? 4
Can someone tell me if this a real tracker? Or is it one designed to show you a different message at certain times, ie. acting like one? 0
4.01 strict weirdness 5
What doctype should I use ? 26
IE/Firefox XHTML Strict 7
Newbie XHTML question. 5

Members online

Total: 36 (members: 1, guests: 35)
Robots: 466

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,579
Members
45,053
Latest member
BrodieSola

Latest Threads

Top