xhtml table attributes

Discussion in 'HTML' started by notbob, Dec 11, 2010.

  1. notbob

    notbob Guest

    I'm completely new to xhtml, so am looking for info. I found a good
    tutorial on webpage layout and am trying to follow it, but I think it
    uses ancient html as there is no DTD at all visible on the source
    page. For a table border, it uses bordercolor="#FF0000", which
    renders fine in my Quanta Plus editor. OTOH, it also gives a error
    about using it in the built in validator which is set for xhtml 1.0
    transitional. So, I look up the xhtml reference page on W3 schools
    which idicates xhtml DOES NOT have bordercolor attr, which would seem
    to go along with the error I'm getting from my validator. OTOH, when
    I go to a Hudson Valley CC website and look at their xhtml reference,
    they say xhtml DOES have a bordercolor attr. Who is right and is it
    rendering properly cuz it's transitional?

    Another question: The website with the layout tutorial on tables says
    tables are good are good for beginners, but CSS is better. If I'm
    gonna go with xhtml, which seems to be the way to go, would I be
    better off forget tables and learn CSS?

    nb
     
    notbob, Dec 11, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. notbob

    dorayme Guest

    In article <4d03f3ee$0$16415$>,
    notbob <> wrote:

    >
    > Another question: The website with the layout tutorial on tables says
    > tables are good are good for beginners, but CSS is better. If I'm
    > gonna go with xhtml, which seems to be the way to go, would I be
    > better off forget tables and learn CSS?
    >


    Go with HTML 4.01 Strict. Separate out the HTML (basically what
    you want to say rather than how nice it can look), and then link
    a CSS stylesheet to style it all as you wish.

    Tables are not opposed to CSS, a table is an HTML element but you
    probably mean laying out pages with tables for the visual effect.
    That is not a good idea these days.

    Now and again you need to use a table (especially if you are a
    beginner) for the odd box or set of boxes because it can be very
    challenging to do without (though a more expert person *should*).

    But in general, use tables where there is a genuine need to
    exhibit the relations between information (eg, a list of goods in
    relation to a list of prices).

    Browse through:

    <http://htmldog.com/>

    but see if you can resist using anything besides 4.01 Strict for
    the moment (unlike them). It is a complicated story which I won't
    go into here, there is no real advantage for you to go past 4.01
    Strict. But if you do, that is OK if you learn about some
    limitations.

    Make sure you get on to the idea explained in the tutes about
    separating content from style.

    <http://htmldog.com/guides/htmladvanced/recap/>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 11, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. notbob wrote:

    > I'm completely new to xhtml, so am looking for info.


    Use HTML 4.01 Strict instead.

    > I found a good tutorial on webpage layout and am trying to follow it,
    > but I think it uses ancient html as there is no DTD at all visible on
    > the source page.


    ...so then it really is _not_ a "good" tutorial. Try this one, and follow
    it all except for its use of XHTML.
    http://htmldog.com/

    > <snip bordercolor stuff, use CSS>
    >
    > Another question: The website with the layout tutorial on tables says
    > tables are good are good for beginners, but CSS is better.


    Tables are good for tabular data .. you know, railroad timetables, name
    and address list, stuff like that. Use CSS for all presentation.
    Beginner or expert.

    > If I'm gonna go with xhtml, which seems to be the way to go,


    No, I don't think so. The next step from HTML 4.01 is to HTML 5 (but it
    is still too young).

    > would I be better off forget tables and learn CSS?


    Yes, except for tables for tabular data.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 11, 2010
    #3
  4. notbob wrote:

    > I'm completely new to xhtml


    Then forget about XHTML. There's little if anything to be gained by using
    XHTML as opposite to disciplined HTML.

    > I found a good tutorial on webpage layout


    Hardly. The (lack of) URL tells a lot about this.

    > For a table border, it uses bordercolor="#FF0000"


    That tells more than we want to know.

    > So, I look up the xhtml reference page on W3 schools


    Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate!

    > which idicates xhtml DOES NOT have bordercolor attr,


    That's correct, by accident.

    > OTOH, when
    > I go to a Hudson Valley CC website and look at their xhtml reference,
    > they say xhtml DOES have a bordercolor attr.


    Well, when I checked my community college's website, they say it's OK too,
    and they also say that 2 + 2 must be more than 5. So whom should I trust?

    > Who is right and is it
    > rendering properly cuz it's transitional?


    "Transitional" has nothing to do with this. What is it exactlt that you wish
    to achieve? Please do not hesitate to post a URL if you want constructive
    help.

    > Another question: The website with the layout tutorial on tables says
    > tables are good are good for beginners, but CSS is better.


    That's roughly the oppoite of the truth. But why do you care?

    > If I'm gonna go with xhtml


    Who told you to go that way?

    Was it the same person who told you about bordercolor (which isn't really
    bad as such, such incomplete).

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 11, 2010
    #4
  5. notbob

    notbob Guest

    On 2010-12-11, Beauregard T. Shagnasty <> wrote:
    >
    > Use HTML 4.01 Strict instead.


    > http://htmldog.com/


    Both you and dorayme advise to use html 4.01 strict and you both refer
    me to http://htmldog.com/, a website that's titled:

    "The Best Practice Guide To XHTML and CSS"

    ......and is coded in "<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML
    1.0....>"

    You trying to help me or jes confuse more than I already am? ;)

    In fact, I see many webpages done in xhtml, specially one's that
    present themselves as authorities on html stds. Why should I eschew
    xhtml for html 4.01 strict? I'm dead serious, here, and have spent
    the last 3 days trying to make sense of this doctype stds insanity, so
    would appreciate a serious answer, please. Thank you.

    I like the "dog" website and it gives some good insights. I do
    see what you mean by meaning and presantation, so I will learn CSS and
    use tables for train schedules only. ;)

    nb
     
    notbob, Dec 12, 2010
    #5
  6. notbob wrote:
    > In fact, I see many webpages done in xhtml, specially one's that
    > present themselves as authorities on html stds. Why should I eschew
    > xhtml for html 4.01 strict? I'm dead serious, here, and have spent
    > the last 3 days trying to make sense of this doctype stds insanity, so
    > would appreciate a serious answer, please. Thank you.


    xhtml held promise, allowed for extended functionality, but since MS
    refused to support xhtml, (still don't with their latest browser) then
    there is no advantage to using it. Those pages in xhtml are just being
    parsed as bad html in IE, so forget xhtml, use html 4.01 strict. Maybe
    MS will support html 5.0...<shrug>

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Dec 12, 2010
    #6
  7. notbob wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Use HTML 4.01 Strict instead.
    >> http://htmldog.com/

    >
    > Both you and dorayme advise to use html 4.01 strict and you both refer
    > me to http://htmldog.com/, a website that's titled:


    It is the most oft-recommended tutorial... W3Schools is generally
    regarded as, um, er .. crap. Lots of errors. Oh, and is not related to
    the W3C at all.

    > "The Best Practice Guide To XHTML and CSS"
    >
    > .....and is coded in "<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML
    > 1.0....>"
    >
    > You trying to help me or jes confuse more than I already am? ;)


    Please note that I said,
    "Try this one, and follow it all *except for its use of XHTML*.
    http://htmldog.com/"

    All except the Xhtml.

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    > In fact, I see many webpages done in xhtml,


    Y'know why? Bcuz a lot of WYSIWYG tools default to it ("the latest
    whizz-bang dee-ziner must-have!") and the users don't know any different
    so they never fix it.

    > specially one's that present themselves as authorities on html stds.


    There are clueless people in all fields. Just a few days ago, I saw a
    local ad for a (local) "web design company." I looked at their
    portfolio. Absolutely *horrible* work in soooo many ways! I'll not
    embarrass them here, and am waiting to see if I get a response to my
    polite email.

    > Why should I eschew xhtml for html 4.01 strict? I'm dead serious,
    > here, and have spent the last 3 days trying to make sense of this
    > doctype stds insanity, so would appreciate a serious answer, please.
    > Thank you.


    Ok, go here to this page of mine and run the test. Use IE, then any
    other modern browser.
    http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php
    It should reaffirm what Jonathan said about Internet Explorer.

    > I like the "dog" website and it gives some good insights. I do see
    > what you mean by meaning [_content_] and presantation, so I will learn
    > CSS and use tables for train schedules only. ;)


    ...even if we can't convince you to drop Xhtml...

    Choices between "tables for layout/CSS" and "HTML/XHTML" are two
    different subjects, of course.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 12, 2010
    #7
  8. notbob

    Dylan Parry Guest

    notbob <> wrote:
    > On 2010-12-11, Beauregard T. Shagnasty <>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> Use HTML 4.01 Strict instead.

    >
    >> http://htmldog.com/

    >
    > Both you and dorayme advise to use html 4.01 strict and you both refer
    > me to http://htmldog.com/, a website that's titled:
    >
    > "The Best Practice Guide To XHTML and CSS"
    >
    > .....and is coded in "<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML
    > 1.0....>"


    XHTML as a spec is dead—the W3C abandoned its working group some time
    back. As a syntax, however, XHTML is very much alive in HTML5 as it
    allows you to write in either HTML (SGML-style) or XHTML (XML-style)
    syntaxes depending on your own preference.

    I personally prefer the XHTML syntax as it reminds me to close all
    elements and keep tags all lowercase etc.

    I'd suggest, as others have done, that you learn HTML 4.01 as a base,
    but look into XHTML syntax to see what you prefer, but also keep an eye
    on HTML5 as it is definitely the future and in many cases can be used
    now (eg. The doctype <!doctype html>). Just don't go down the way of the
    dead XHTML 2.0 spec, or allow yourself to stagnate without looking to
    future specs.

    --
    Dylan Parry
     
    Dylan Parry, Dec 12, 2010
    #8
  9. notbob

    notbob Guest

    On 2010-12-12, Beauregard T. Shagnasty <> wrote:

    > It is the most oft-recommended tutorial... W3Schools is generally
    > regarded as, um, er .. crap. Lots of errors. Oh, and is not related to
    > the W3C at all.


    Ahh... I did not know that. Thnx for the clarification.

    > All except the Xhtml.


    DOH! Possibly a senior moment.

    > Y'know why? Bcuz a lot of WYSIWYG tools default to it ("the latest
    > whizz-bang dee-ziner must-have!") and the users don't know any different
    > so they never fix it.


    I guess it was W3C.org using xhtml that made up my mind, but this
    wouldn't be the first time I've changed. I plan on doing all coding
    manually, till I understand.

    > Ok, go here to this page of mine and run the test. Use IE, then any
    > other modern browser.
    > http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php
    > It should reaffirm what Jonathan said about Internet Explorer.


    I'll get back on that. I did run htmldog.com on both a XP w/ IE6 and
    my Slackware box w/ Seamonkey. They both rendered the same.

    > ..even if we can't convince you to drop Xhtml...


    I'm not made of stone. So far, the "html 4.01 strict" advice has been
    unanimous. I'm not against experienced advice or I wouldn't have
    asked the question. I started to go with html5, but discovered few
    browsers suppport it.

    > Choices between "tables for layout/CSS" and "HTML/XHTML" are two
    > different subjects, of course.


    I know how to do tables, from my old html 2.0 days (short lived), so
    if I'm gonna relearn, can't hurt to learn CSS, too. I'm no code boy,
    but am not afraid of jumping in. I want to do this right and prefer
    learning the right way, not the shortcuts.

    Thank you for your advice.

    nb
     
    notbob, Dec 12, 2010
    #9
  10. notbob

    notbob Guest

    On 2010-12-12, Dylan Parry <> wrote:

    > XHTML as a spec is dead???the W3C abandoned its working group some time
    > back. As a syntax, however, XHTML is very much alive in HTML5 as it
    > allows you to write in either HTML (SGML-style) or XHTML (XML-style)
    > syntaxes depending on your own preference.
    >
    > I personally prefer the XHTML syntax as it reminds me to close all
    > elements and keep tags all lowercase etc.
    >
    > I'd suggest, as others have done, that you learn HTML 4.01 as a base,
    > but look into XHTML syntax to see what you prefer, but also keep an eye
    > on HTML5 as it is definitely the future and in many cases can be used
    > now (eg. The doctype <!doctype html>). Just don't go down the way of the
    > dead XHTML 2.0 spec, or allow yourself to stagnate without looking to
    > future specs.


    Good points, all.

    It's pretty obvious the whole mess in still in flux and nobody has
    settled on much of anything. This will be the fifth day I've been
    researching this one single issue and am still confused as ever. I
    guess I'll go with 4.01 and keep my ear to the ground. I jes wanna
    get started learning the damn code, not trying to make a choice. I'm
    so clueless on the whole website thing, I figure it'll take me all
    Winter to jest get something up. No problem. I'm retired and got
    nothing better to do. Besides, I got the whole LAMP thing on my
    plate, too. That should keep me out of trouble.

    Now, if anyone can point me to a good basic website how-to ....using
    html 4.01 and CSS!.... I'd appreciate it. ;)

    Thank you all for the much needed advice. I guess alt.html is not so
    dead, after all.

    nb
     
    notbob, Dec 12, 2010
    #10
  11. notbob

    Rob W. Guest

    Op 12-12-2010 15:24, notbob schreef:
    > On 2010-12-12, Dylan Parry<> wrote:
    >
    >> XHTML as a spec is dead [....]. As a syntax, however, XHTML is very much alive in HTML5 [...].
    >>


    This is going to be pretty confusing for the not so very well initiated


    >> I personally prefer the XHTML syntax as it reminds me to close all
    >> elements and keep tags all lowercase etc.



    This is something I read a lot and I'm not impressed.
    What's wrong with you that you continually have to be reminded to close
    elements?
    You're smart enough to use a markup language but you keep forgetting to
    use some pretty basic best-practices. That's very odd.

    Do you also keep forgetting to close the door when you drive away in
    your car? (some cars will drive with open doors)


    >
    > Good points, all.
    >
    > It's pretty obvious the whole mess in still in flux and nobody has
    > settled on much of anything. This will be the fifth day I've been
    > researching this one single issue and am still confused as ever.



    Don't be.
    You've already shown gratitude for the good advise you've gotten. So
    stick with it. Go for HTML 4.01


    > I guess I'll go with 4.01 .


    See?


    > Now, if anyone can point me to a good basic website how-to ....using
    > html 4.01 and CSS!.... I'd appreciate it. ;)



    Included in the earlier good advice was <http://htmldog.com/>.

    >
    > nb



    --
    Rob
     
    Rob W., Dec 12, 2010
    #11
  12. notbob wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> It is the most oft-recommended tutorial... W3Schools is generally
    >> regarded as, um, er .. crap. Lots of errors. Oh, and is not related
    >> to the W3C at all.

    >
    > Ahh... I did not know that. Thnx for the clarification.
    >
    >> All except the Xhtml.

    >
    > DOH! Possibly a senior moment.
    >
    >> Y'know why? Bcuz a lot of WYSIWYG tools default to it ("the latest
    >> whizz-bang dee-ziner must-have!") and the users don't know any
    >> different so they never fix it.

    >
    > I guess it was W3C.org using xhtml that made up my mind,


    http://www.w3.org/ ... Do note that even they are cheating in their
    page generation. They are claiming the XHTML doctype, but are actually
    transmitting the pages as:

    Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <-- HTML, not XHTML

    rather than the correct:

    Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8

    Of course, if they didn't cheat, everyone using IE would not be able to
    read their web site. (My test page listed below)

    Note that their pages about HTML 4.01 use that doctype instead of XHTML.

    > but this wouldn't be the first time I've changed. I plan on doing all
    > coding manually, till I understand.


    And that way you will learn!

    >> Ok, go here to this page of mine and run the test. Use IE, then any
    >> other modern browser.
    >> http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php
    >> It should reaffirm what Jonathan said about Internet Explorer.

    >
    > I'll get back on that. I did run htmldog.com on both a XP w/ IE6 and
    > my Slackware box w/ Seamonkey. They both rendered the same.


    ...because they too are cheating! (see above)

    >> ..even if we can't convince you to drop Xhtml...

    >
    > I'm not made of stone. So far, the "html 4.01 strict" advice has been
    > unanimous. I'm not against experienced advice or I wouldn't have
    > asked the question. I started to go with html5, but discovered few
    > browsers suppport it.
    >
    >> Choices between "tables for layout/CSS" and "HTML/XHTML" are two
    >> different subjects, of course.

    >
    > I know how to do tables, from my old html 2.0 days (short lived), so
    > if I'm gonna relearn, can't hurt to learn CSS, too. I'm no code boy,
    > but am not afraid of jumping in. I want to do this right and prefer
    > learning the right way, not the shortcuts.


    It is sooo much easier using an external style sheet for presentation.
    Change one file, changes entire web site. Use inline styles or in-page
    style blocks only for one-off styling on a single page only.

    > Thank you for your advice.


    YW.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 12, 2010
    #12
  13. notbob wrote:

    > Now, if anyone can point me to a good basic website how-to ....using
    > html 4.01 and CSS!.... I'd appreciate it. ;)


    http://htmldog.com/ <rof'l>

    Just use the HTML 4.01 Strict doctype, and don't use those slashes when
    closing elements. These: />
    ^
    Now if you were asking about *design and layout* how-tos that's a whole
    different ballgame. Design is in the eye of the beholder - and the
    client if you're working for someone else. If the client wants and
    insists on flashing red and green banners, you do it. Otherwise, you
    create with good taste.

    Speaking of design and layout, there's always the ZenGarden example.
    http://www.csszengarden.com/
    Same content, different style sheets. Pick from the menu on the right.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 12, 2010
    #13
  14. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Dylan Parry
    <> writing in news:943243946313865040.855962usenet-
    -september.org:

    > "Rob W." <> wrote:
    >>>> I personally prefer the XHTML syntax as it reminds me to close all
    >>>> elements and keep tags all lowercase etc.

    >>
    >> This is something I read a lot and I'm not impressed.
    >> What's wrong with you that you continually have to be reminded to
    >> close elements?
    >> You're smart enough to use a markup language but you keep forgetting
    >> to use some pretty basic best-practices. That's very odd.

    >
    > It might be best practice, but it's not invalid to forget to close
    > elements in HTML, but it is in XHTML, so a validator will pick up on
    > such errors and warn about them. An incorrectly nested element could
    > easily be the cause of a problem if you don't notice it—and late-

    night
    > coding can often cause such issues.


    And modern browsers like Firefox and Opera will refuse to render that
    page - IMO, great for testing.

    >
    >> Do you also keep forgetting to close the door when you drive away in
    >> your car? (some cars will drive with open doors)

    >
    > I don't drive, so probably would :p
    >


    Be sure not to sit on the left side of the car when the driver is turning
    left - you'll fall out. I did.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Dec 12, 2010
    #14
  15. notbob

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Dec 12, 9:12 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:
    > notbob wrote:
    > > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > >> It is the most oft-recommended tutorial...  W3Schools is generally
    > >> regarded as, um, er .. crap. Lots of errors. Oh, and is not related
    > >> to the W3C at all.

    >
    > > Ahh... I did not know that.  Thnx for the clarification.

    >
    > >> All except the Xhtml.

    >
    > > DOH!  Possibly a senior moment.

    >
    > >> Y'know why?  Bcuz a lot of WYSIWYG tools default to it ("the latest
    > >> whizz-bang dee-ziner must-have!") and the users don't know any
    > >> different so they never fix it.

    >
    > > I guess it was W3C.org using xhtml that made up my mind,

    >
    > http://www.w3.org/...  Do note that even they are cheating in their
    > page generation. They are claiming the XHTML doctype, but are actually
    > transmitting the pages as:
    >
    >    Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8      <-- HTML, not XHTML
    >
    > rather than the correct:
    >
    >    Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
    >
    > Of course, if they didn't cheat, everyone using IE would not be able to
    > read their web site. (My test page listed below)
    >
    > Note that their pages about HTML 4.01 use that doctype instead of XHTML.


    The fairly new IE9 beta browser finally will handle xhtml served
    properly as application/xhtml+xml, although I have found a bug or two.
    Also IE9 beta will now handle much more xhtm5 including the video and
    audio elements which are of much interest to some. However many IE8,7,
    and even 6 browsers are still being used. Moreover, IE9 can be
    installed only on Windows 7 and Vista OSs, and many XP OSs still are
    being used. For these reasons, you likely will have to consider older
    IE browsers for many more years. For these older IE browsers to view
    an xhtml page properly served as application/xhtml+xml,some trick,
    such as using a php insert to convert the xhtml page to a html page,
    must be used if the header exchange dialogue does not indicate that
    the viewing browser can handle the mime type application/xhtml+xml.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Dec 14, 2010
    #15
  16. cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

    [snippage]
    >> http://www.w3.org/...  Do note that even they are cheating in their
    >> page generation. They are claiming the XHTML doctype, but are
    >> actually transmitting the pages as:
    >>
    >>    Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8      <-- HTML, not XHTML
    >>
    >> rather than the correct:
    >>
    >>    Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
    >>
    >> Of course, if they didn't cheat, everyone using IE would not be able
    >> to read their web site. (My test page listed below)
    >>
    >> Note that their pages about HTML 4.01 use that doctype instead of
    >> XHTML.

    >
    > The fairly new IE9 beta browser finally will handle xhtml served
    > properly as application/xhtml+xml, although I have found a bug or two.


    Begs the response: "It's about time!!"

    > Also IE9 beta will now handle much more xhtm5 including the video and
    > audio elements which are of much interest to some. However many IE8,7,
    > and even 6 browsers are still being used. Moreover, IE9 can be
    > installed only on Windows 7 and Vista OSs, and many XP OSs still are
    > being used. For these reasons, you likely will have to consider older
    > IE browsers for many more years. For these older IE browsers to view
    > an xhtml page properly served as application/xhtml+xml,some trick,
    > such as using a php insert to convert the xhtml page to a html page,
    > must be used if the header exchange dialogue does not indicate that
    > the viewing browser can handle the mime type application/xhtml+xml.


    I suspect the percentage of web authors who go for that amount of
    sophistication will be a rather small number, eh?

    One of my commercial sites this month has over half its hits from XP, a
    fair smattering from Win9x, various Windows 200N, Windows NT, and even a
    few stragglers from Windows 3.xx! Also, all versions of IE from 5.0 up
    - but only 0.1% from IE9 so far.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 14, 2010
    #16
  17. notbob

    Neil Gould Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >
    >> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

    > [snippage]
    >>> http://www.w3.org/... Do note that even they are cheating in their
    >>> page generation. They are claiming the XHTML doctype, but are
    >>> actually transmitting the pages as:
    >>>
    >>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <-- HTML, not XHTML
    >>>
    >>> rather than the correct:
    >>>
    >>> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
    >>>
    >>> Of course, if they didn't cheat, everyone using IE would not be able
    >>> to read their web site. (My test page listed below)
    >>>
    >>> Note that their pages about HTML 4.01 use that doctype instead of
    >>> XHTML.

    >>
    >> The fairly new IE9 beta browser finally will handle xhtml served
    >> properly as application/xhtml+xml, although I have found a bug or
    >> two.

    >
    > Begs the response: "It's about time!!"
    >

    Hmm... my response is "too little too late."

    > One of my commercial sites this month has over half its hits from XP,
    > a fair smattering from Win9x, various Windows 200N, Windows NT, and
    > even a few stragglers from Windows 3.xx! Also, all versions of IE
    > from 5.0 up - but only 0.1% from IE9 so far.
    >

    By the time IE9 accounts for a large enough portion of the market to matter,
    XHTML will likely be quite dead.

    --
    best regards,

    Neil
     
    Neil Gould, Dec 14, 2010
    #17
  18. Neil Gould wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >>> The fairly new IE9 beta browser finally will handle xhtml served
    >>> properly as application/xhtml+xml, although I have found a bug or
    >>> two.

    >>
    >> Begs the response: "It's about time!!"
    >>

    > Hmm... my response is "too little too late."


    That too...

    > By the time IE9 accounts for a large enough portion of the market to
    > matter, XHTML will likely be quite dead.


    And I will be too old to care. :)

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 14, 2010
    #18
  19. notbob

    mcnewsxp Guest

    > Go with HTML 4.01 Strict.

    may i ask what supports this assertion? i read thru some of the other
    replies. is it mainly because microsoft does not support xhtml? the
    company i work uses xhtml transitional. goofy little things like closed
    short tags throw an error whne i switch to 4.0 strict.
    what arguemnt should i use when trying to convince my colleagues that 4.01
    strict is the smartest choice?
    thanks,
    mike
     
    mcnewsxp, Dec 20, 2010
    #19
  20. notbob

    dorayme Guest

    In article <ieoggs$tb0$-september.org>,
    "mcnewsxp" <> wrote:

    > > Go with HTML 4.01 Strict.

    >
    > may i ask what supports this assertion? i read thru some of the other
    > replies. is it mainly because microsoft does not support xhtml? the
    > company i work uses xhtml transitional. goofy little things like closed
    > short tags throw an error whne i switch to 4.0 strict.
    > what arguemnt should i use when trying to convince my colleagues that 4.01
    > strict is the smartest choice?
    > thanks,
    > mike


    In your average world situation where you have colleagues that
    need to be convinced for you to do something yourself, don't! Go
    with the trendy but otherwise fairly pointless XHTML and just do
    it right and serve it as HTML and get it valid and no bad things
    will happen to you and you will save yourself a lot of grief.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 20, 2010
    #20
    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:
    901
  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