|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 01/22/06 23:35
John Salerno <johnjsal@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I understand that XHTML and HTML are basically the same,
They aren't. The first thing to know about XHTML is that it is futile or
worse at present as a document delivery format on the WWW.
> but that XHTML requires a stricter structure,
It doesn't.
> which it inherits from XML.
It doesn't. XML is a more restricted metalanguage than SGML, so many many
constructs that are valid XHTML are invalid HTML. For example,
<a><a></a></a>.
> But what is meant when someone says that XHTML *is* XML?
Something pointless.
> I know that HTML is an SGML language,
Formally only.
> It seems to suggest that I can create my own tags in XHTML
> (since you can in XML),
You can create your own tags in SGML just as well as in XML. Actually better.
Of course, HTML specifications are closed, so inventing your own tags takes
you outside HTML, no matter what the metalanguage is.
> Is it safe to say
> that XHTML is a completely new language based on XML that just happens
> to have all the same-named tags as HTML?
No. There's nothing safe in XHTML. People just hurt themselves when they
start playing with XHTML.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|