XHTML - Browser support

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Andrew Banks, Jan 14, 2004.

  1. Andrew Banks

    Andrew Banks Guest

    I'm not referring to any specific site here, just talkin i theory.

    If I designed a site to XHTML 1.0 transitional and it validated through W3C
    (also valid CSS) - which browsers would display it without problem? Do
    different browsers render XHTML differently or should they all display it
    roughly the same?

    I'm just wondering that if I design to a standard and the browsers support
    the standard - will the site look the same acroos each of these browsers?
     
    Andrew Banks, Jan 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew Banks

    Chris Morris Guest

    "Andrew Banks" <> writes:
    > If I designed a site to XHTML 1.0 transitional and it validated through W3C
    > (also valid CSS) - which browsers would display it without problem? Do


    That depends what specific markup and CSS you use. Generally Gecko
    (Mozilla, Netscape 6+, etc) and Opera have the fewest problems fully
    interpreting HTML/CSS, and Internet Explorer has the most. KHTML
    (Konqueror, Safari) is somewhere inbetween.

    Text-mode browsers (Lynx, Links, w3m) ignore CSS (so far) but
    interpret (X)HTML well.

    Handheld browsers are varied and have their own issues to deal with,
    likewise audio browsers.

    If you're using XHTML and not serving it according to Appendix C
    (check the Google archives on this group) then Internet Explorer will
    have severe problems.

    > different browsers render XHTML differently


    Yes.

    > or should they all display it roughly the same?


    No.

    > I'm just wondering that if I design to a standard and the browsers support
    > the standard - will the site look the same acroos each of these browsers?


    No. Since the browsers might not support graphics (or even have a
    visual display) looking the same is impossible. Also, a phone browser
    with a 200x200 screen in 16 colours will look somewhat different to a
    flatscreen 1280x1024 display in 24-bit colour.

    You should concentrate on making sure your site works in as many
    browsers as possible:
    Top priority - users can get at the content in their browser
    Second priority - easily
    Third priority - and it looks (or equivalent) nice

    --
    Chris
     
    Chris Morris, Jan 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew Banks

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <X6dNb.15487$>,
    says...
    > I'm not referring to any specific site here, just talkin i theory.
    > If I designed a site to XHTML 1.0 transitional and it validated through W3C
    > (also valid CSS) - which browsers would display it without problem? Do
    > different browsers render XHTML differently or should they all display it
    > roughly the same?
    > I'm just wondering that if I design to a standard and the browsers support
    > the standard - will the site look the same acroos each of these browsers?


    Validation is a good place to start. Once you validate, look at your
    site with the various browsers. If it looks and acts right, then you
    are done. Many times, you will have to tweak this or that (sometimes
    with code that does not validate)

    Remember, Validation is a tool, not a goal.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Jan 14, 2004
    #3
  4. In article Andrew Banks wrote:
    > I'm not referring to any specific site here, just talkin i theory.
    >
    > If I designed a site to XHTML 1.0 transitional and it validated through W3C
    > (also valid CSS) - which browsers would display it without problem?


    I'm not sure of any. Mozilla most likely.
    -valid xhtml can use things like <img src="foo" alt="bar"/> that may
    broke browser. (notice no space between / and > )
    -transitional XHTML includes more HTML things that aren't supported by
    many browsers. Strict does some too. (colspan=0)
    -XML capable non validating broser would not necessarily display named
    entities. (In fact, Opera doesn't, and Mozilla only because it cheats)
    -Depending in what content-type you would serve it could cause more
    problems.
    -<a name="foo"/> is valid XHTML. Try styling it if that don't seem to be
    problem...
    -validating markup tells you syntax errors, but not all.

    (of course, some points also apply to html whitout x...)

    > Do different browsers render XHTML differently


    Yes.

    > or should they all display it roughly the same?


    Surely not. That would be against whole ide of html/xhtml.

    > I'm just wondering that if I design to a standard and the browsers support
    > the standard - will the site look the same acroos each of these browsers?


    If you design for XHTML1 standard without appendix C, it works almost
    well as HTML in Opera and Mozilla AFAIK. If you take that appendix in
    account, it works almost as well as HTML transitional.

    Anyway, you should not use XHTML transitional. CSS has pretty much
    replaced any need for HTML transitional. And if you want maximum support
    for <u> etc. that is deprected (but very useful if you are talking about
    underlining), you should be using html, not xhtml...

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
    tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.
     
    Lauri Raittila, Jan 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Andrew Banks

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Chris Morris wrote:

    > You should concentrate on making sure your site works in as many
    > browsers as possible:
    > Top priority - users can get at the content in their browser
    > Second priority - easily
    > Third priority - and it looks (or equivalent) nice


    You are right about making sure it is compatible, but I am not quite sure
    I agree with the priorities you have listed. I would say something more
    like:

    1. the content is usable without the user having to do anything special
    2. it looks as intended by design
    3. it has working bells and whistles

    --
    Dylan Parry
    http://www.webpageworkshop.co.uk - FREE Web tutorials and references
     
    Dylan Parry, Jan 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Andrew Banks

    DU Guest

    Andrew Banks wrote:

    > I'm not referring to any specific site here, just talkin i theory.
    >
    > If I designed a site to XHTML 1.0 transitional and it validated through W3C
    > (also valid CSS) - which browsers would display it without problem? Do
    > different browsers render XHTML differently or should they all display it
    > roughly the same?
    >
    > I'm just wondering that if I design to a standard and the browsers support
    > the standard - will the site look the same acroos each of these browsers?
    >
    >



    IMO, there are more benefits into designing a site to validate with the
    strict definition over the transitional definition than there are
    benefits with XHTML 1 over HMTL 4.01. The more "strict" compliant your
    website is, the closer the look across W3C compliant browsers (recent
    browser versions) should be and the more your website will get the
    benefits (short term and long term ones) of compliance.
    With CSS1 and CSS2 being increasingly supported by browsers in the last
    5 years, there is no need anymore for writing pages with a transitional
    definition.

    DU
     
    DU, Jan 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Andrew Banks

    Chris Morris Guest

    Dylan Parry <> writes:
    > Chris Morris wrote:
    > > You should concentrate on making sure your site works in as many
    > > browsers as possible:
    > > Top priority - users can get at the content in their browser
    > > Second priority - easily
    > > Third priority - and it looks (or equivalent) nice

    >
    > You are right about making sure it is compatible, but I am not quite sure
    > I agree with the priorities you have listed. I would say something more
    > like:
    >
    > 1. the content is usable without the user having to do anything special
    > 2. it looks as intended by design
    > 3. it has working bells and whistles


    I'm not sure there's actually much difference between our sets of
    priorities, I think we broadly agree - I'd say your '1' was a
    combination of my '1' and '2', and then your '3' is somewhere around
    '4' for me.

    (Assuming of course that you wouldn't intentionally design a site to
    look bad...)

    In practice I'd never make a site that didn't meet the first two of my
    priorities/first one of yours unless absolutely unavoidable (it's not
    happened yet).

    --
    Chris
     
    Chris Morris, Jan 15, 2004
    #7
    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:
    900
  2. chronos3d
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    786
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 5, 2006
  3. Usha2009
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,140
    Usha2009
    Dec 20, 2009
  4. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    xhtml champs
    Aug 1, 2011
  5. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,044
    xhtml champs
    Aug 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page