What is XHTML?

[Toby A Inkster]

<meta name="description">Description of my website</meta>

That is indeed what's happening in XHTML 2.

 

[Andy Dingley]

That is indeed what's happening in XHTML 2.

If XHTML 2 ever happens, that is. A key decision with XHTML 2 was
that it would abandon backward compatibility. Given the web's
continued inability to abandon the old kludges, I'm not sure if it
will ever fly.

 

[Andy Dingley]

XHTML is a poor mans XML.

No it isn't. XML is a transport, XHTML is one schema that uses this
transport, much as HTML used a dumbed-down SGML.

XML and XHTML are in _no_ way comparable to each other - they address
different layers of the problem.

so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

In what way is XHTML a "mixture" of XML and HTML ? XHTML _uses_ XML,
it doesn't overlap it in any way.

If we permit namespacing (which is admittedly problematic on the web)
then you can use XHTML with all the features of XML that you might
ever wish for.


I only bother posting this because it might spark an interesting
discussion with some people who are genuinely confused by XHTML. You
OTOH, are just being Loud, Confident and Wrong.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

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.

according to W3C XHTML 1.0 is NOT identical to HTML 4.01:
read:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs

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">?

yes, if you ever heard of lynx, or text-to-speech browsers. or download
for a try the IBM home page reader
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html
then you will understand the importance of a logical structured site

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.

read the W3C specs.

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.

I don't know about you, but here in Switzerland the government has
established a set of rules and guidelines for gov websites, and hence
webdesigners aiming for a gov contract. In order to be readable with as
many user-agents as possible a page has to be XHTML valid, and provide,
of course, the strict separation of structure and layout.

bernhard

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

<SNIP>

XHTML is a poor mans XML. It is for people who are too fucking stupid to properly
understand what XML is for and so a cludgy fudge of mixing HTML (designed for
displaying content) and XML (designed for describing data) was invented just
for these idiots.

7 times the same post?
looks like you could use some structured mark-up language. I suggest XML
or XHTML for a start ;-)... and don't mess around with the acronyms.
DHTML has nothing to do with HTML vs. XHTML...

bernhard

 

[Kris]

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.

I don't know about you, but here in Switzerland the government has
established a set of rules and guidelines for gov websites, and hence
webdesigners aiming for a gov contract. In order to be readable with as
many user-agents as possible a page has to be XHTML valid, and provide,
of course, the strict separation of structure and layout.[/QUOTE]

If you have a quick link to information about that regulation, I would
like to know. I am very interested in that. Thanks.

 

[David Dorward]

Steve Pugh schrieb:

according to W3C XHTML 1.0 is NOT identical to HTML 4.01:
read: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs

The content is identical, all that is different are a few minor syntax
points.

so how did you close your <img> tag long ago?

, if you ever heard of lynx, or text-to-speech browsers. or download
for a try the IBM home page reader
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html
then you will understand the importance of a logical structured site
(e.g. the proper use of <h1>)
or simply try lynx.

I don't think anyone is denying the advantage of good markup, just that
XHTML forces authors to use it.

read the W3C specs.

We have.

I don't know about you, but here in Switzerland the government has
established a set of rules and guidelines for gov websites, and hence
webdesigners aiming for a gov contract. In order to be readable with as
many user-agents as possible a page has to be XHTML valid

That's interesting. I'm not aware of any user agents designed for use on the
web that support XHTML but not HTML. On the other hand, I have encountered
browsers which support HTML so well that they correctly render <img
src="dot.png" alt="." /> as ".>".

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

I don't know about you, but here in Switzerland the government has
established a set of rules and guidelines for gov websites, and hence
webdesigners aiming for a gov contract. In order to be readable with as
many user-agents as possible a page has to be XHTML valid, and provide,
of course, the strict separation of structure and layout.

If you have a quick link to information about that regulation, I would
like to know. I am very interested in that. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

it's an internal paper I am talking about, which is only handed to
webdesigners during an offical tender procedure.
but this paragraph of the Swiss federal law
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/151_31/a10.html
regulates accessibility issues for handicapped persons. The law requires
all gov websites to be written according to the latest W3C
recommendations. As the W3C recommends the use of XHTML/CSS for barrier
free webdesign, all official gov websites are to be in XHTML/CSS...

I don't understand why this is causing so much noise in the NG . If
your government is asking for XHTML/CSS, why moaning? Otherwise you will
be just out of the business.

bernhard

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

What advantage is there to closing <img> tags?

many WAP2.0 user agents use XHTML as their basic profile, if it's not
wellformed it's not XHTML. your WAP agent will not be able to render
correctly your page, hence the necessity of closing all tags.

generally speaking: wellformed XHTML will be your key to the future.

see:
http://web.zdnet.com.au/builder/architect/sdi/story/0,2000035062,20266421,00.htm?
under WAP 2.0 brings new standards.

No, it doesn't. XHTML can be abused with <div class="title"> just as easily
as HTML.

yes but then it's not structured.
just download the home page reader and try it. You will easily hear(!)
the difference of a <h1> tag, and a <div class="title"></div>. We are
talking about structured languages, so use them strucutred.
besides if you want to include mobile user agents (WAP) then you will
not use class="title"...

That's interesting. I'm not aware of any user agents designed for use on the
web that support XHTML but not HTML. On the other hand, I have encountered
browsers which support HTML so well that they correctly render <img
src="dot.png" alt="." /> as ".>".

WAP2.0 user agents use XHTML as their basic profile, and not HTML. I
always wonder why so many webdesigner always think in terms of
IE/Mozilla/Opera when talking about user agents, and tend to forget that
there are millions of mobile users out their using their WAP browsers.
It's just much easier to have an XHTML site ready for WAP, instead of an
non-wellformed HTML site.

see also: http://builder.com.com/5100-6371-1051816.html

bernhard

 

[David Dorward]

many WAP2.0 user agents use XHTML as their basic profile, if it's not
wellformed it's not XHTML. your WAP agent will not be able to render
correctly your page, hence the necessity of closing all tags.
http://web.zdnet.com.au/builder/architect/sdi/story/0,2000035062,20266421,00.htm?
under WAP 2.0 brings new standards.

WAP 2.0 is based on XHTML Basic, not Strict, not Transitional, but Basic.
Does that mean that documents still have to be converted?

yes but then it's not structured.

That isn't the point. The point is that XHTML doesn't contribute towards the
use of structured markup any more or less then regular HTML.

just download the home page reader and try it.

As I said - nobody is claiming that structured markup isn't a good idea,
only that XHTML enforces it.

WAP2.0 user agents use XHTML as their basic profile, and not HTML.

OK, now I know one. However, as I said, I don't know if providing content
in, for example, XHTML Strict is going to be any good towards a WAP 2.0
user agent, but I do know that any variant of XHTML is going to cause
problems in some HTML user agents. Admittedly those HTML user agents which
get /> right are few and far between, so if WAP 2.0 agents can cope with
XHTML 1.0 Strict, then the weight will probably be towards those.

I wonder how they treat content types? Do they reject text/html resources
entirely? Attempt to render it no matter what content type it uses?

 

[Joel Shepherd]

It's just much easier to have an XHTML site ready for WAP, instead
of an non-wellformed HTML site.

Seems like there is a third alternative missing there. The choice is
not just between any XHTML and badly-formed HTML.

 

[David Dorward]

Seems like there is a third alternative missing there. The choice is
not just between any XHTML and badly-formed HTML.

Wellformed is a technical term meaning that all tags are closed in reverse
order of being opened. For an HTML document to be well formed it must
close every tag (including those which are optional) and omit any tag
without a closing tag (<br>, <img>, <meta>, <link>, etc). This is not
practical in the majority of documents.

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

I don't know about you, but here in Switzerland the government has
established a set of rules and guidelines for gov websites

Could you point me to those rules? I guess I'm looking at the wrong
places. Thanks!


Matthias

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

From what I can see, XHTML2 is
going to be a W3C spec too.

Nobody really knows. It's been under construction for quite some time,
and it still seems to lack the big idea. As currently drafted, it will
break continuity - XHML 2 documents wouldn't work on "older" browsers
(including all current browsers), and it will give remarkably little
new even if implemented.

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?

(It's actually slash, or solidus, not backslash, or reverse solidus.)

I'm pretty sure SGML, with its freer syntax and customizability, will
be reinvented, under some seXy name.

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.

Actually, just about half of the truth, or actually less than half.
Since XHTML uses a stripped-down metalanguage (XML), it has _less_
strict formalized syntax in many ways (in addition to imposing, on the
other hand, more strict syntax at in some issues).

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

True enough, but there's also the issue of closure for elements
like <br /> I don't think _anyone_ was doing that in HTML, until
XML content-management started to be used.

That's understandable, because in SGML-based HTML, <br /> means
<br >> and because no end tag for a br element is permitted.

There was never any good reason to close elements like <br>, and
neither was there any good reason to introduce them into HTML first
place, as explained in detail at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html

 

[Steve Pugh]

according to W3C XHTML 1.0 is NOT identical to HTML 4.01:

Every element that's in XHTML 1.0 is in HTML 4.01 and vise versa.

so how did you close your <img> tag long ago?

yes, if you ever heard of lynx, or text-to-speech browsers. or download
for a try the IBM home page reader
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html
then you will understand the importance of a logical structured site
(e.g. the proper use of <h1>)
or simply try lynx.

I use Lynx quite regularly.

You seem to have totally missed the point.

How does XHTML force authors to use <h1> instead of <div
class="title">?

read the W3C specs.

I have. Can you point at anything in the W3C specs that says that
XHTML 1.0 can't be used to create exactly the same presentational crud
that HTML 4.01 does?

I don't know about you, but here in Switzerland the government has
established a set of rules and guidelines for gov websites, and hence
webdesigners aiming for a gov contract.

The sites I've built for the UK Gov have had to follow similar
guidelines. In a rare moment of sanity the Uk Gov hasn't insisted on
XHTML, which offers no benefits for authors or end users.

In order to be readable with as
many user-agents as possible a page has to be XHTML valid,

How many user agents are there that can read XHTML but not HTML 4.01?
Indeed considering that you have the mangle teh XHTML to get the most
widely used user agent of all to read it the reverse is nearer the
truth.

and provide,
of course, the strict separation of structure and layout.

XHTML does nothing to enforce or even encourage separation of
structure and layout. HTML 4.01 can be just as well separated as XHTML
1.0.

Steve

 

[Firas D.]

As currently drafted, it will
break continuity - XHML 2 documents wouldn't work on "older" browsers
(including all current browsers),

*sigh* ok, I give up. How about "I'm stubborn and it's what my tools
output anyway"?

Actually, just about half of the truth, or actually less than half.
Since XHTML uses a stripped-down metalanguage (XML), it has _less_
strict formalized syntax in many ways (in addition to imposing, on the
other hand, more strict syntax at in some issues).

That just went over my head. All it takes to convert a 4.01 Strict to
XHTML 1.0 is a few closing tags, no? As far this
(http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html) is concerned, it's all
far-out stuff about how markup should be rendered rather than how it is.

 

[Andy Dingley]

The sites I've built for the UK Gov have had to follow similar
guidelines.

The UK Gov has similar guidelines. Actually _following_ them is still
a considerable rarity.

My experience has been with Lottery and NOF funded sites, but there's
a similar lip-service to standards or acessibility, and a total
failure in practice.

 

[David Dorward]

(http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html) is concerned, it's all
far-out stuff about how markup should be rendered rather than how it is.

.... how it is except for a few user agents which do get it right. They
aren't common, but they do exist.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

*sigh* ok, I give up. How about "I'm stubborn and it's what my
tools output anyway"?

Are you sure? Many authoring tools spit out funny doctype declarations,
even completely bogus. Anyway, if your tools does strange things and
cannot be configured and you insist on using them, then "stubborn" is
indeed a word that comes into my mind.

That just went over my head.

So why don't you use good old HTML, which you presumably understand?

All it takes to convert a 4.01 Strict
to XHTML 1.0 is a few closing tags, no?

No, there are lots of other useless things to be done, too.

As far this
(http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html) is concerned, it's
all far-out stuff about how markup should be rendered rather than
how it is.

It actually says very little about any rendering. It explains what
those funny <br /> things really are. If you don't care, fine. But why
do you use them if you don't know what they are? (And <br /> does not
_do_ anything different from <br> visually, except in the rare browsers
that comply with HTML 2.0, HTML 3.2, HTML 4.0, or HTML 4.01
specification - browsers that you probably never saw.)