XHTML - Browser support

[Andrew Banks]

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?

 

[Chris Morris]

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

 

[Whitecrest]

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.

 

[Lauri Raittila]

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...

 

[Dylan Parry]

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

 

[DU]

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

 

[Chris Morris]

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).