XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by William Gill, Jul 10, 2007.

  1. William Gill

    William Gill Guest

    I was of the (possibly misguided) impression over the last several years
    that XHTML 1.1 was the current direction of web publishing. Lurking
    here, I sense a pronounced disdain for it. At the risk of incurring the
    wrath of some here, could you give me some insight on this, and possible
    direction. The last thing I need is to spend a lot more time and effort
    "mastering" something that I shouldn't be doing in the first place.
    William Gill, Jul 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Jul 10, 4:15 pm, William Gill <> wrote:
    > I was of the (possibly misguided) impression over the last several years
    > that XHTML 1.1 was the current direction of web publishing. Lurking
    > here, I sense a pronounced disdain for it. At the risk of incurring the
    > wrath of some here, could you give me some insight on this, and possible
    > direction.


    XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
    support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
    among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
    Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
    of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

    --
    David Dorward
    http://dorward.me.uk
    http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
    David Dorward, Jul 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. William Gill

    William Gill Guest

    David Dorward wrote:
    > XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
    > support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
    > among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
    > Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
    > of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.


    I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
    polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
    spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.

    Thanks.
    William Gill, Jul 10, 2007
    #3
  4. William Gill

    John Hosking Guest

    William Gill wrote:
    >
    > David Dorward wrote:
    >> XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
    >> support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
    >> among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
    >> Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
    >> of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

    >
    > I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
    > polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
    > spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.


    What a refreshing change! A poster who lurks first, writes clearly, and
    responds politely! I was about to give up hope...

    A well-behaved gentleman like yourself would be welcome in most any
    technical discussion you'd care to contribute to. You might also want to
    visit/lurk/participate at c.i.w.a.html, if you're not already.

    One of the multitude of articles and discussions regarding XHTML is
    sitting in my bookmarks (from 2005):
    http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200501/the_perils_of_using_xhtml_properly/
    (which URL which probably wrap). That article comes from a different
    direction, but touches on some of the issues to consider. Be sure to
    read through the comments.

    I haven't had need to touch XHTML so I stay with HTML 4.01 strict.

    --
    John
    Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    John Hosking, Jul 10, 2007
    #4
  5. Scripsit David Dorward:

    > XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
    > support among clients)


    The parenthetic remark is not correct. Ruby annotations are supported, with
    limitations, by Internet Explorer (even in version 6). On the other hand, IE
    is happy to do Ruby irrespectively of the document type you declare - it
    does not care the least about the document type, except for analizing the
    doctype string for the sole purpose of selecting Quirks vs. "Standards"
    mode.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jul 10, 2007
    #5
  6. William Gill

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <0_Oki.21270$>,
    William Gill <> wrote:

    > David Dorward wrote:
    > > XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
    > > support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
    > > among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
    > > Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
    > > of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

    >
    > I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
    > polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
    > spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.


    I am also engaged in the same process.
    Tim Streater, Jul 10, 2007
    #6
  7. On Jul 10, 6:34 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > Scripsit David Dorward:
    > > XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
    > > support among clients)

    >
    > The parenthetic remark is not correct. Ruby annotations are supported, with
    > limitations, by Internet Explorer (even in version 6).


    So that is one client that supports it, so long as you don't serve it
    as application/xhtml+xml (which you "SHOULD" do).

    --
    David Dorward
    http://dorward.me.uk
    http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
    David Dorward, Jul 10, 2007
    #7
  8. William Gill

    dorayme Guest

    In article <4693c25e$>,
    John Hosking <> wrote:

    > What a refreshing change! A poster who lurks first, writes clearly, and
    > responds politely! I was about to give up hope...


    Hang on there... give him time... he might change. It may be a
    ploy to disarm you... I have been reflecting deeply on JK's point
    about it being hard not to be cynical in _this_ world.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 11, 2007
    #8
    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. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    867
  2. chronos3d
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    762
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 5, 2006
  3. Usha2009
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,118
    Usha2009
    Dec 20, 2009
  4. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    xhtml champs
    Aug 1, 2011
  5. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,014
    xhtml champs
    Aug 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page