What is XHTML?

W

Whitecrest

Really? Point your browser at http://steve.pugh.net/default-x11.xhtml
IE can not cope with properly served XHTML. It can only cope with it
if you pretend it's HTML. i.e. http://steve.pugh.net/default-x11.html

So wouldn't it be better to NOT use XHTML, or at least serve it the way
IE wants it, until the browser that controls 90% of the world accepts
it?

Why eliminate 90% of your audience? Heck people here bitch when you
loose javascript and lose the 12.5%
 
S

SpaceGirl

Mark Parnell said:
We were talking about XHTML... I *know* IE chokes on XML. That's a different
argument.

XHTML _is_ XML. The correct mime type for XHTML is
application/xhtml+xml[1]. When you serve it using that mime type, IE
can't cope.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt


That's not what I meant. IE tends to choke when it's handling (displaying)
data. I've not had any serious issues with XHTML under IE.
 
S

Steve Pugh

SpaceGirl said:
see above

See what above? The only thing above is your statement that all
browsers fully support XHTML. Which is clearly not true.

The above page is 100% valid, properly served XHTML. It is treated
properly by Opera, Mozilla, etc. But IE doesn't even try to display
it. That is not 'fully supported' except in a very strange fantasy
land.
It works if you pet it :)

pet = outright lie?
Maybe "force" is a strong word. It "enourages" better formatting :)

How does it encourage this?

The only, marginal, advantage could be that if an author chooses to
switch to XHTML he might also be at the right psychological point to
choose to right semantically sound code. But the same can be said,
with more conviction, about a switch from Transitional to Strict.
Of course it does; but a compitent designer can end up with cleaner code.

A competent author can end up with equally clean code using HTML.
Cleaner code,

easier progression to whatever comes next?

As XHTML 2.0 is deliberately not going to be backwards compatible with
past versions there is going to be very little progression at all.
More a choice between a clean start (dump old code, dump old browsers)
or sticking with what we have now.
Why not just write all your sites in HTML 3... it works,

Show me one browser that supports said:
does everything HTML 4.01 does (although, you may have to jump
through hoops to get it to work).

No it doesn't. Most of the accessibility features are missing for
starters. And if you did mean 3.2 instead of 3.0 then it's also
missing the class and id attributes which limits what you can do with
stylesheets (especially considering that IE's CSS support is so poor
that it doesn't support most of the contextual selectors).

Steve
 
M

Mark Parnell

That's not what I meant. IE tends to choke when it's handling (displaying)
data. I've not had any serious issues with XHTML under IE.

That's because you are lying and claiming that it is actually HTML, by
sending it with a text/html mime type, instead of the correct mime type
for XHTML.
 
I

Italy Anonymous Remailer

Paul Furman said:
I checked google and this page seems to be trying to say it but still
doesn't tell me:
<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

XML has a use. XHTML is for fashion victims and newbies only. Not to be taken
seriously. Of course I should add that XHTML is excellent in the hands of these
people who desperately need just one MORE way of making the internet a WORSE
place than it already is.

In the beginning we had competing browsers adding their own custom tags to
HTML, then we had java, but most people were too stupid to learn java so JAVASCRIPT
was invented just for them so that they could find all sorts of ways of making
pop up windows, sending your browser into an infinite loop and then crashing.


Then along came DHTML so you could make a square move around your page then
crash...(that was the next big thing), then CSS, then we had Flash all the
wonderous exciting 'intros' that brought to the world.

Finally XHTML, a contradiction in terms suitable for every newbie and asswipe
idiot who is just too stupid to get their head round XML. Excellent.
 
F

futureworlds

Paul Furman said:
I checked google and this page seems to be trying to say it but still
doesn't tell me:
<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

XML has a use. XHTML is for fashion victims and newbies only. Not to be taken
seriously. Of course I should add that XHTML is excellent in the hands of these
people who desperately need just one MORE way of making the internet a WORSE
place than it already is.

In the beginning we had competing browsers adding their own custom tags to
HTML, then we had java, but most people were too stupid to learn java so JAVASCRIPT
was invented just for them so that they could find all sorts of ways of making
pop up windows, sending your browser into an infinite loop and then crashing.


Then along came DHTML so you could make a square move around your page then
crash...(that was the next big thing), then CSS, then we had Flash all the
wonderous exciting 'intros' that brought to the world.

Finally XHTML, a contradiction in terms suitable for every newbie and asswipe
idiot who is just too stupid to get their head round XML. Excellent.
 
N

Nomen Nescio

Paul Furman said:
I checked google and this page seems to be trying to say it but still
doesn't tell me:
<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

XML has a use. XHTML is for fashion victims and newbies only. Not to be taken
seriously. Of course I should add that XHTML is excellent in the hands of these
people who desperately need just one MORE way of making the internet a WORSE
place than it already is.

In the beginning we had competing browsers adding their own custom tags to
HTML, then we had java, but most people were too stupid to learn java so JAVASCRIPT
was invented just for them so that they could find all sorts of ways of making
pop up windows, sending your browser into an infinite loop and then crashing.

Then along came DHTML so you could make a square move around your page then
crash...(that was the next big thing), then CSS, then we had Flash all the
wonderous exciting 'intros' that brought to the world.

Finally XHTML, a contradiction in terms suitable for every newbie and asswipe
idiot who is just too stupid to get their head round XML. Excellent.
 
N

Nomen Nescio

Paul Furman said:
I checked google and this page seems to be trying to say it but still
doesn't tell me:
<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

XML has a use. XHTML is for fashion victims and newbies only. Not to be taken
seriously. Of course I should add that XHTML is excellent in the hands of these
people who desperately need just one MORE way of making the internet a WORSE
place than it already is.

In the beginning we had competing browsers adding their own custom tags to
HTML, then we had java, but most people were too stupid to learn java so JAVASCRIPT
was invented just for them so that they could find all sorts of ways of making
pop up windows, sending your browser into an infinite loop and then crashing.


Then along came DHTML so you could make a square move around your page then
crash...(that was the next big thing), then CSS, then we had Flash all the
wonderous exciting 'intros' that brought to the world.

Finally XHTML, a contradiction in terms suitable for every newbie and asswipe
idiot who is just too stupid to get their head round XML. Excellent.
 
N

Nomen Nescio

Paul Furman said:
I checked google and this page seems to be trying to say it but still
doesn't tell me:
<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

XML has a use. XHTML is for fashion victims and newbies only. Not to be taken
seriously. Of course I should add that XHTML is excellent in the hands of these
people who desperately need just one MORE way of making the internet a WORSE
place than it already is.

In the beginning we had competing browsers adding their own custom tags to
HTML, then we had java, but most people were too stupid to learn java so JAVASCRIPT
was invented just for them so that they could find all sorts of ways of making
pop up windows, sending your browser into an infinite loop and then crashing.


Then along came DHTML so you could make a square move around your page then
crash...(that was the next big thing), then CSS, then we had Flash all the
wonderous exciting 'intros' that brought to the world.

Finally XHTML, a contradiction in terms suitable for every newbie and asswipe
idiot who is just too stupid to get their head round XML. Excellent.
 
A

Anonymous

Paul Furman said:
I checked google and this page seems to be trying to say it but still
doesn't tell me:
<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

XML has a use. XHTML is for fashion victims and newbies only. Not to be taken
seriously. Of course I should add that XHTML is excellent in the hands of these
people who desperately need just one MORE way of making the internet a WORSE
place than it already is.

In the beginning we had competing browsers adding their own custom tags to
HTML, then we had java, but most people were too stupid to learn java so JAVASCRIPT
was invented just for them so that they could find all sorts of ways of making
pop up windows, sending your browser into an infinite loop and then crashing.


Then along came DHTML so you could make a square move around your page then
crash...(that was the next big thing), then CSS, then we had Flash all the
wonderous exciting 'intros' that brought to the world.

Finally XHTML, a contradiction in terms suitable for every newbie and asswipe
idiot who is just too stupid to get their head round XML. Excellent.
 
I

Italy Anonymous Remailer

Paul Furman said:
I checked google and this page seems to be trying to say it but still
doesn't tell me:
<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

XML has a use. XHTML is for fashion victims and newbies only. Not to be taken
seriously. Of course I should add that XHTML is excellent in the hands of these
people who desperately need just one MORE way of making the internet a WORSE
place than it already is.

In the beginning we had competing browsers adding their own custom tags to
HTML, then we had java, but most people were too stupid to learn java so JAVASCRIPT
was invented just for them so that they could find all sorts of ways of making
pop up windows, sending your browser into an infinite loop and then crashing.


Then along came DHTML so you could make a square move around your page then
crash...(that was the next big thing), then CSS, then we had Flash all the
wonderous exciting 'intros' that brought to the world.

Finally XHTML, a contradiction in terms suitable for every newbie and asswipe
idiot who is just too stupid to get their head round XML. Excellent.
 
A

Andy Dingley

Big deal. Decent authors were closing elemeents long before XHTML came
along. CSS bugs have been more of a driving force in this respect than
XHTML has been.

True enough, but there's also the issue of closure for elements like
<br /> I don't think _anyone_ was doing that in HTML, until XML
content-management started to be used.
 
S

Steve Pugh

Andy Dingley said:
True enough, but there's also the issue of closure for elements like
<br /> I don't think _anyone_ was doing that in HTML, until XML
content-management started to be used.

Yeah, but it doesn't actually give any advantages does it?

Writing <br /> is no tangible benefits over writingt <br>.

In other words, no-one was doing it because there was (and indeed is)
no point in doing so.

Steve
 
A

A Hess

Somewhere around 2/27/04 2:44 PM, Steve Pugh typed wildly with reckless
abandon:
Yeah, but it doesn't actually give any advantages does it?

Writing <br /> is no tangible benefits over writingt <br>.

In other words, no-one was doing it because there was (and indeed is)
no point in doing so.

Steve

Also, What about <img... />, <hr />, <meta... /> etc.? Is there any
point in those? It seems to me the answer would be no, is it?
 
J

Jason Henning

<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for

This from the guy that posted the same message 7 times. If you need to
post anomymously, maybe you shouldn't post.

Cheers,
Jason Henning
 
N

Nick Theodorakis

[...]
Also, What about <img... />, <hr />, <meta... /> etc.? Is there any
point in those? It seems to me the answer would be no, is it?

In some of those cases, it seems to me that they could have been made
more useful if they weren't empty. For example, wouldn't it have been
nice if <img> could have contained alternate content:

<img src="cat.jpg">My cat has fuzzy whiskers</img>

or for meta:

<meta name="description">Description of my website</meta>


Nick
 
D

David Dorward

Nick said:
In some of those cases, it seems to me that they could have been made
more useful if they weren't empty. For example, wouldn't it have been
nice if <img> could have contained alternate content:

<img src="cat.jpg">My cat has fuzzy whiskers</img>

That's why <object> is (in theory) preferred to <img>. Its a shame about the
level of browser support for <object> at present.
 

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

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top