|
|
Posted by A-OK-SITE on 06/21/11 12:01
On Jan 28, 8:46 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> cwdjrxyz wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, A-OK-SITE <aoksi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 27, 3:46 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
> >>> Scripsit Jeff:
> >>>> I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.
> >>> Consider learning what a validator is before trying to fool it.
> >>> Then read the validator's FAQ list when you run into problems.
> >>> And if you use JavaScript, just put any bulky code into an external
> >>> file, and any validation issues with it vanish in a puff of logic.
> >>>> Should I be using XHTML [...]?
> >>> No, especially since you asked.
> >>> --
> >>> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
> >> Jeff,
>
> >> Everybody seems to have a preference as to which doc type they prefer
> >> html or xhtml and most of it has no basis in reality. It is like the
> >> old Ford vs Chevy argument in which both are good but for some reason
> >> people just seem to like one more than the other.
>
> >> XHTML is a cleaner code with features like self-closing tags (et al).
> >> The XHTML is almost always served and interpreted as HTML with the
> >> main difference being the syntax only. The new HTML 5.0 and XHTML 2.0
> >> that is soon to be released is bringing the two types even closer
> >> together based on preliminary information. It is also somewhat like
> >> the difference between strict and transitional and both will render
> >> the page the same with only minute differences in the way the page is
> >> coded.
>
> >> So in summary pick the language you feel the most comfortable with and
> >> use it. They are both valid and fully functional, and all modern
> >> browsers will render the code just fine. It is just my humble opinion
> >> but I prefer XHTML, but I always preferred a Chevy and a Budweiser
> >> too.
>
> > Unfortunately no IE browser, including IE7, can render any xhtml if it
> > is served properly as mime type application/xhtml+xml. All you get is
> > an error message. Many mis-serve xhtml as text/html and use an
> > extension .html. Although this often works for IE browsers, there is
> > no point in writing xhtml code in the first place if you are not going
> > to serve it as xhtml.
>
> Just what is the advantage of serving xhtml+xml? The only thing I see is
> something about being able to write objects differently. Or is this
> about being able to add xml with an xslt stylesheet? If so, I do not see
> that anywhere. The only "trick" I see is the object media thing: <p
> src="some_image">something else</a>.
>
> Actually from a quick look through the w3C and some other googling all
> I see is syntax examples. And the syntax is not complicated! Perhaps a
> working xhtml example that does something new.
>
> Otherwise it seems like nothing but trouble. With much of the web
> being driven by CMS if the parser doesn't grok the crap the author puts
> in you wind up with a page more broken than it should be.
>
> I don't have a problem with writing HTML XHTMLish, I even like the much
> maligned <br />.
>
> Jeff
>
> Since the extension .html usually is associated
>
> > with the mime type for text/html on the server, you have to use
> > another extension, such as .xhtml, and assign it to the xhtml mime
> > type application/xhtml+xml on the server. Then when you serve xhtml
> > properly, in addition to IE browsers not working, other modern
> > browsers such as Firefox, Opera, Seamonkey, and Safari for Windows
> > will handle true xhtml. However then the code is parsed as xml. A xml
> > parser must be much more strict than a html parser. The least little
> > mistake, such as a single unclosed tag, gives a fatal parse error that
> > results in an error message rather than a view of the page, which
> > often works with little problem in html.
>
> > If you want to serve true xhtml, you have to provide IE html by using
> > separate pages, header/browser exchange and rewriting the page for
> > html for browsers that do not indicate they can handle the mime type
> > for xhtml, etc. The main reason for all of this trouble is that
> > Microsoft can not or will not write their browsers to handle modern
> > xhtml properly. Hopefully, now that Vista is out after much delay,
> > Microsoft will have time to bring their browser up to date. IE7 was
> > just a minor change from IE6. It did correct some bugs and might be a
> > bit more secure. However it was outmoded at the moment it was
> > released.
>
> > The important thing to remember is that you have xhtml only if both
> > the code is written in xhtml and it is served as application/xhtml+xml
> > - not text/html. The W3C validator only validates the code as html or
> > xhtml. It does not validate that the code is being served properly.
> > However, in the most detailed setting of the validator, it will tell
> > you if the page is being served as text/html or application/xhtml+xml.
> > You will find very few pages being served properly as xhtml when you
> > check them.
Jeff,
See what I was talking about it is the same old arguments with no
basis in reality (see previous post). A large percent of
knowledgeable web designers use XHTML and serve it as HTML with no
problems. I find that most of the people who object to XHTML don't
want to spend the time learning a new process for coding pages. XHTML
uses modern practices like external style sheets and box design for
layouts instead of tables and inline formatting. There is absolutely
no doubt that XHTML provides a much cleaner and uncluttered page.
However, to each their own.
Daniel
http://a-ok-site.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|