xhtml Validation Errors

[Big Bill]

I have the flu. I dont feel to much like explaining everything

I wouldn't want to meet you when you're feeling articulate....

BB

 

[Big Bill]

I have the flu. I dont feel to much like explaining everything


Until when...


Well, easier code to read, better structure for a start.


Based on "why no write something that is better structured, and will work
anyway". I don't think there are any really tangible benefits for writing
XHTML over HTML, other than it forces you to work in a more structured
manner (which will be adopted by 'whatever comes next'). That's a good
enough reason.

Not in the here and now it isn't. We're not trying to push back the
boundaries of science, we're trying to get heads in beds in Spain and
as cost-effectively as possible.

BB

BB

 

[John]

If that's really what your book says, I recommend you to not read
further.

No it's not exactly what it says. I've worded it really badly. It is
just about upgrading to xhtml so that it is future proof, and so that
obsolete html tags are replaced with their xhtml equivalent.

Thanks very much for the help guys.

John

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Are you
designing with your client's needs in mind, or are you designing to
stroke your ego?

I am my client.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Have not tables always been a hack?

No. They're a lot more elegant than using <pre> to present tabular data.

 

[Whitecrest]

Blah. So why not adopt markup that does work pretty much everywhere, but
also lends itself for a more structured approach and hopefully better
rendering in more modern & future browsers? Not as if XHTML is hard work you
know...

No, but it isn't fully supported by 80%-90% of your visitors. Can you
compensate for that? Sure, but why compensate when you don't have to?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

If we're being pedantic, then HTML 4.01 must not be served as
text/html. The IETF (the Internet's official standards setting body,
who govern the registration of content types) has only sanctioned the
use of that content type for HTML 2.0 (as per RFC 1866) plus a few
i18n extensions (RFC 2070).

RFC 1866 and RFC 2070 were obsoleted by the IETF in RFC 2854, "The
'text/html' Media Type", in June 2000. It "defines the 'text/html' MIME
type by pointing to the relevant W3C recommendations". Specifically, it
says:

Published specification:
The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations;
the latest published version is [HTML401]. In addition, [XHTML1]
defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML
4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.

Other RFCs alluding to newer versions of HTML and XHTML are only
informational, so don't define standards.

It's no allusion. The definition of 'text/html' has been explicitly moved
to the realm of the W3C. And RFC 1866 and RFC 2070 were never standards,
and they have been obsoleted by a statement by the same organization that
issued them.

Of course, RFC 2854 is a collection of adhockery, handwaving, and
inconsistencies. But it's what the IEFT has to say about 'text/html' at
present, and this will hardly change.

 

[Big Bill]

I am my client.

Well I'm not, and as such I have a duty of care to those who are, and
that doesn't involve coercing my clients into needless expenditure
just so I can get my rocks off showing everyone what a clever coder I
am.
So pooh.

BB

 

[Big Bill]

No. They're a lot more elegant than using <pre> to present tabular data.

i wouldn't use pre anyway, bit of a copout IMHO. I was though under
the impression that tables are misused on a regular basis and that
that's accepted because there were and are presentational limitations
in the HTML specs.
Gawd'elp me, I'm starting to sound like you lot now.

BB

 

[Toby A Inkster]

RFC 1866 and RFC 2070 were obsoleted by the IETF in RFC 2854,

I don't observe RFC 2854 as it's only Informational.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I don't observe RFC 2854 as it's only Informational.

Then why do you observe RFCs that were only proposed standards before
they were obsoleted?