|
|
Posted by David Dorward on 01/19/06 21:03
Marc wrote:
> Okay, so I've heard the disadvantages of using HTML and also the
> question "why use XHTML when you don't need to?" posed a lot. What
> about some disadvantages of using XHTML - what reasons are there *not*
> to use it?
Under XHTML rules <foo /> means the same as <foo></foo>. Under HTML rules it
means the same as <foo>>. Conformant browsers will spray ">" characters
all over the output of XHTML documents served as text/html. (There aren't
many browsers which get that part of the spec right, but they do exist).
> "The benefits of adopting XHTML now or migrating your existing site to
> the new standards are many. First of all, they ensure excellent
> forward-compatibility for your creations.
Compatibility with what? The new generation of browsers due out in 20 years
that aren't going to support 99%+ of the existing www?
> XHTML is the new set of
> standards that the web will be built on in the years to come, so
> future-proofing your work early will save you much trouble later on.
Converting HTML 4.01 Strict to XHTML 1.0 Strict is trivial to do
programatically. So using XHTML now will not save you "much trouble" later
on.
> Future browser versions might stop supporting deprecated elements from
> old HTML drafts, and so many old basic-HTML sites may start displaying
> incorrectly and unpredictably.
We aren't suggesting you use features which only appeared in drafts, not are
we suggesting you use deprecated features.
> Once you have used XHTML for a short time, it is no more difficult to
> use than HTML ever was,
Wrong. Its no more difficult to *write*. Getting it to clients in a sensible
way is another kettle of fish.
> and in ways is easier since it is built on a
> more simplified set of standards.
Wrong. The rules for XHTML 1.0 that conforms to Appendix C and the rules for
HTML 4.01 are pretty much identical. The only differences are:
* In XHTML elements defined as empty must be written as <foo /> not <foo>.
* In XHTML minimised attributes are not allowed
* In HTML there are a bunch of rules which say "this rule is optional IF".
In XHTML the optional clause is removed. This makes no real difference as
you can follow rules which are sometimes optional even when they are
optional!
> Writing code is a more streamlined
> experience,
Err...?
> as gone are the days of browser hacks and display tricks.
Rubbish. XHTML is not a magic wand that fixed browser bugs.
> Editing your existing code is also a nicer experience as it is
> infinitely cleaner and more self-explanatory.
Excuse me while I have a coughing fit. That's rubbish.
> Browsers can also interpret and display a clean XHTML page quicker than
> one with errors that the browser may have to handle.
That is true ... in theory (since the browser is required to throw an error
if the document is not well formed, so it doesn't have to worry about
trying to correct a certain type of error) ... but only if you serve the
document as application/xhtml+xml ... which isn't well supported ... so you
have to muck around with content negotiation.
In other words - IF you do a LOT of work then a MINORITY of your users MAY
see faster parsing of the document. (However, since most websites are
transmitted over the Internet, the time it takes to parse the document is
an insignificant fraction of the time between the request being made and
the page being rendered).
> A well-written XHTML page is more accessible than an old style HTML
> page,
Rubbish. Lets see some evidence to back that up.
> and is guaranteed to work in any standards-compliant browser
No more so then a well-written HTML document.
> As mentioned above, XHTML allows greater access to configurations other
> than a computer and browser.
No, it doesn't.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
[Back to original message]
|