What is XHTML?

[SpaceGirl]

No.

Server side is reliable and doesn't depend on browser support.
Server side can take changes from users and give them to other users.

Learning PHP is far more useful then XML IMO.

I would however learn both, as an essential. PHP is platform specific,
XML/XHTML isn't. It really depends what route you want to head down; pure
front end, a mixture of from a back office, or pure back office coding. ASP
is also very common, but also a *very* different server-side scripting
language. But if you're handling your data in XML, the server side scripting
becomes a lot easier - as well as easy to transplant to whatever preferred
server side platform.

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

I would however learn both, as an essential. PHP is platform specific,
XML/XHTML isn't.

My last XML formmail script didn't work so well, and I never figured out
that darned PHP DTD. Apples are crunchy, oranges are juicy.

If you know what I mean .


Matthias

 

[SpaceGirl]

My last XML formmail script didn't work so well, and I never figured out
that darned PHP DTD. Apples are crunchy, oranges are juicy.

If you know what I mean .


Matthias

I do

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Sounds like nobody is really using it yet.

Many people are using XHTML because they have been told that it's newer
and it's the W3C recommendation. You can even find educational
institutes where it is a requirement or at least a strong
recommendation to use XHTML.

But few people are using XHTML for anything useful. Besides, strictly
speaking, if you put XML tags other than XHTML tags into a document,
it's not really XHTML any more, just XML with XHTML tags. Admittedly
XHTML has been defined (probably intentionally) so vaguely that
"non-strict" conformance to XHTML could be claimed by almost anyone and
his dog's vomit.

Maybe that it contains it's
own scripting so the database can be queried without stressing the
server's machinery?

No, its nothing like that, it's just marketed in such ways.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I can tell you from experience that talking about XHTML is a serious
turn-off for girls, even the geeky sort

But surely with the "X", it's more successful than talking about boring
old HTML?

 

[Toby A Inkster]

I'm not clear what XML does that an SQL database doesn't do with
server side scripting. Maybe that it contains it's own scripting so the
database can be queried without stressing the server's machinery?

XML and SQL are completely different kettles of fish.

Asking "should I write my page using XML or an SQL database?" is a bit
like asking "should I write my page in HTML or Swedish?".

It is possible to write a page in HTML *and* Swedish, or HTML but not
Swedish, or Swedish but not HTML, or neither.

XML is a universal generic method of representing and structuring data. It
doesn't *do* or *mean* anything on its own. You build formats and
applications on top of it. XML is "the new binary"[1].

SQL is a language for querying databases. If you ask a database "give me a
list of all my clients called 'Henry' and let me know their phone numbers
too" it won't know what you're talking about, because it can't understand
our natural language. You need a more structured language... a structured
language for querying the database... perhaps this one called Structured
Query Language (SQL)?

So you ask:

SELECT firstname,lastname,phone FROM clients WHERE firstname='Henry';

And your database gives you what you want.

We can easily combine the two technologies. For example, we could whip up
a script to perform an SQL query on a database and then format the
resulting data in XML. An example XML response from the above query might
be:

<clientlist>
<client>
<name><first>Henry</first><sur>Mancini</sur></name>
<contact method="tel">020 8812 3456</contact>
</client>
<client>
<name><first>Henry</first><sur>Kissenger</sur></name>
<contact method="tel">020 7865 4321</contact>
</client>
</clientlist>

[1] By that, I don't mean that it has to do with 1s and 0s: just that it
is simply a way of representing blobs of data without caring what the data
is. Once you have this way of storing and reading blobs of data, you can
build useful stuff on top of it: image formats, audio formats, text,
whatever.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

I mean i could use some girls you know, specially for the dirty work

Debugging Javascript?

 

[Firas D.]

But surely with the "X", it's more successful than talking about boring
old HTML?

I know you don't like XHTML, Jukka, but you were balking at CSS back in
'97 too. I'll admit that my reasons for conforming to it are purely
impulsive, but so are many other things I do.

Anyway, I don't use it because it's the *new* big thing, but because
it's the *next* big thing. Surely XHTML isn't going to be deprecated in
favour of HTML syntax, is it?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I know you don't like XHTML, Jukka,

Pardon, Ms. or Mr. "Firas D.", you didn't get a joke. I wrote that
"XHTML" is more successful in girl affairs than HTML. How come you
derive that I don't like "XHTML"? Oh I see... if everyone else uses
"XHTML", they get all the chicks.

but you were balking at CSS back in '97 too.

I still am, and my predictions or warnings have turned out to be
correct - disappointingly, even more correct than I suspect.
Haven't _you_ noticed how people use a mixture of <span> and <div>
sallad and use poorly prepared CSS dressing over it, then start whining
about "bugs" in browsers when real CSS bugs in browsers get fixed?

I'll admit that my reasons for conforming to it
are purely impulsive,

I think you misspelled "superstitious" or "trying to keep up with the
latest fashion".

Anyway, I don't use it because it's the *new* big thing, but
because it's the *next* big thing.

You can find plenty of much much bigger "next big things" if you take
even a casual look at http://www.w3.org/ . Surely most of them are just
useless games to be abandoned in favor of newer toys, but we don't
really know which.

Surely XHTML isn't going to be
deprecated in favour of HTML syntax, is it?

I have no idea of what you are referring to. Apart from the silly
slashes and some similar obscurities, XHTML is just a restricted
version of HTML. The market leader shows no sign of actually supporting
XHTML except as a side-effect of sloppy HTML parsing, and other
browsers have weird ideas of XHTML support (no predefined entities
recognized, etc.), so why would anyone bother deprecating such an
exercise in futility as using XHTML (as distinct from using HTML tags
in XML documents, which is a different can of worms)?

 

[SpaceGirl]

Surely XHTML isn't going to be

I have no idea of what you are referring to. Apart from the silly
slashes and some similar obscurities, XHTML is just a restricted
version of HTML. The market leader shows no sign of actually supporting
XHTML except as a side-effect of sloppy HTML parsing, and other
browsers have weird ideas of XHTML support (no predefined entities
recognized, etc.), so why would anyone bother deprecating such an
exercise in futility as using XHTML (as distinct from using HTML tags
in XML documents, which is a different can of worms)?

Care to back this up? Seeing as *all* browsers (not just the major ones)
seem to fully support XHTML, I don't see how "The market leader shows no
sign of actually supporting XHTML except as a side-effect of sloppy HTML
parsing" can be true. Even the most sophisticated and widely used design
programs such as DreamWeaver and um... notepad support it XHMTL does the
opposite of what you suggest; it does not limit, but extends...

XHTML isn't there just for the hell of it. It forces users to make sure they
close their tags, forces a more structured approach, and forces a lot of the
old "html for layout" out the door to use CSS, which is infinately more
flexible.

As for "why would anyone bother", well people ARE bothering. You are in
serious danger of being left behind if you dont open your eyes and actually
look at what people are doing, rather than just assuming people think the
way you do

 

[Firas D.]

Pardon, Ms. or Mr. "Firas D.", you didn't get a joke. I wrote that
"XHTML" is more successful in girl affairs than HTML. How come you
derive that I don't like "XHTML"? Oh I see... if everyone else uses
"XHTML", they get all the chicks.

Mr.

I actually based that sentence on other stuff you've been saying besides
the post I replied to. What I meant is that you obviously try to
discourage people from it, and hence regard it as somewhat
frivolous--unnecessary, at least?

Sorry if I came across as dismissive, I really value your opinion, which
is why I replied to the joke with a serious tone.

<snip CSS part--not really interested, and don't necessarily disagree>

You can find plenty of much much bigger "next big things" if you take
even a casual look at http://www.w3.org/ . Surely most of them are just
useless games to be abandoned in favor of newer toys, but we don't
really know which.

But it's so much fun to play with the toys while they're there.

I think our disagreement revolves around whether the extra effort
required produces anything of value. It doesn't. Which is why I mulled
over the following issue:

I have no idea of what you are referring to. Apart from the silly
slashes and some similar obscurities, XHTML is just a restricted
version of HTML.

That's side-stepping the question. From what I can see, XHTML2 is going
to be a W3C spec too. Nobody's going to decide to go backwards and
figure that those trailing backslashes (to close empty tags) weren't
such a good idea after all, are they? Because, well, the only thing I've
noticed is that conforming to XHTML (I'm strictly a novice) requires the
markup to adhere to somewhat more stringent standards. That doesn't
really give me nightmares..

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

XHTML isn't there just for the hell of it. It forces users to make sure they
close their tags, forces a more structured approach, and forces a lot of the
old "html for layout" out the door to use CSS, which is infinately more
flexible.

I wish that was true. But all the "random acts of validation" and other
surveys done over the last couple years indicate that XHTML sites are
just as non-valid and borken as HTML sites.

As for "why would anyone bother", well people ARE bothering. You are in
serious danger of being left behind if you dont open your eyes and actually
look at what people are doing, rather than just assuming people think the
way you do

SpaceGirl, you obviously don't know who you're dealing with. As far as
(X)HTML is concerned, Jukka is years ahead of us.


Matthias

 

[Spartanicus]

Care to back this up? Seeing as *all* browsers (not just the major ones)
seem to fully support XHTML

Not IE if it's served correctly (using the application/xhtml+xml mime
type), try accessing this site with IE:
http://users.dna.ie/dnetjVTs/info.xhtml

 

[Paul Furman]

Not IE if it's served correctly (using the application/xhtml+xml mime
type), try accessing this site with IE:
http://users.dna.ie/dnetjVTs/info.xhtml

IE says it's some weird suspicious file and asks am I sure I want to
download & save to disk or if I want to open it, what program should I use?

 

[Spartanicus]

IE says it's some weird suspicious file and asks am I sure I want to
download & save to disk or if I want to open it, what program should I use?

Try a proper browser (Opera, Moz).

 

[Steve Pugh]

Care to back this up? Seeing as *all* browsers (not just the major ones)
seem to fully support XHTML,

Really? Point your browser at http://steve.pugh.net/default-x11.xhtml

I don't see how "The market leader shows no
sign of actually supporting XHTML except as a side-effect of sloppy HTML
parsing" can be true.

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

Those two files are identical (apart from linking to the stylesheet
via an XML prolog rather than a link element) but the first is served
with a proper XHTML Content-Type whilst the second is served with an
HTML Content-Type.

Then look at <br></br>. In IE this creates two line breaks not one.
Only by using <br /> can we make it display a single line break. And
that is because those browsers (indeed virtually all browsers) have a
bug in their HTML parsing whereby they treat <br /> as <br> rather
than as <br>> which is what it is under the SGML rules used in the
HTML specification.

So, yes, IE does only "support" XHTML by (a) treating it as HTML and
(b) parsing that HTML sloppily.

XHMTL does the
opposite of what you suggest; it does not limit, but extends...

As XHTML 1.0 is identical to HTML 4.01 and as XHTML 1.1 takes a lot
out and only adds ruby in, that statement is rather suspect.

XHTML isn't there just for the hell of it. It forces users to make sure they
close their tags,

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.

forces a more structured approach,

and forces a lot of the
old "html for layout" out the door to use CSS, which is infinately more
flexible.

Everything that can be done in HTML 4.01 can be done in XHTML 1.0.
XHTML 1.0 Transitional has _all_ the presentational crud that HTML
4.01 Transitional has.

As for "why would anyone bother", well people ARE bothering.

Yes, but why?

You are in
serious danger of being left behind if you dont open your eyes and actually
look at what people are doing, rather than just assuming people think the
way you do

I think it's safe to say that Jukka sees an awful lot of what people
are doing and that is why he is prone to so much pessimism.

Steve

 

[SpaceGirl]

Not IE if it's served correctly (using the application/xhtml+xml mime
type), try accessing this site with IE:
http://users.dna.ie/dnetjVTs/info.xhtml

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

 

[Mark Parnell]

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

 

[SpaceGirl]

Really? Point your browser at http://steve.pugh.net/default-x11.xhtml

see above

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

It works if you pet it

Those two files are identical (apart from linking to the stylesheet
via an XML prolog rather than a link element) but the first is served
with a proper XHTML Content-Type whilst the second is served with an
HTML Content-Type.

Then look at <br></br>. In IE this creates two line breaks not one.
Only by using <br /> can we make it display a single line break. And
that is because those browsers (indeed virtually all browsers) have a
bug in their HTML parsing whereby they treat <br /> as <br> rather
than as <br>> which is what it is under the SGML rules used in the
HTML specification.

IE was never perfect, I guess this is more examples! grrr.

So, yes, IE does only "support" XHTML by (a) treating it as HTML and
(b) parsing that HTML sloppily.


As XHTML 1.0 is identical to HTML 4.01 and as XHTML 1.1 takes a lot
out and only adds ruby in, that statement is rather suspect.


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.


How? Does it force users to use <h1> rather than <div class="title">?

Maybe "force" is a strong word. It "enourages" better formatting

Everything that can be done in HTML 4.01 can be done in XHTML 1.0.
XHTML 1.0 Transitional has _all_ the presentational crud that HTML
4.01 Transitional has.

Of course it does; but a compitent designer can end up with cleaner code.

Yes, but why?

Cleaner code, easier progression to whatever comes next?

Why not just write all your sites in HTML 3... it works, does everything
HTML 4.01 does (although, you may have to jump through hoops to get it to
work).

I think it's safe to say that Jukka sees an awful lot of what people
are doing and that is why he is prone to so much pessimism.

Oh? And what qualifies him, I wonder? I'm a professional design too
y'know... My previous client was Ford, and I'm now working with artists on
the Universal Music label to build some sites for some up-coming albums pp

Steve

Miranda

 

[Whitecrest]

Try a proper browser (Opera, Moz).

But since 90% of the world uses IE, wouldn't it be smarter just not use
XHTML right now?