xhtml vs html 4 strict

[Chuck]

Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
used?

What possible, immediate, benefit would there be? I am at a loss to see
what, pragmatic, difference it would make.

[David Dorward]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Chuck wrote:
[color=blue]
> Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
> used?[/color]

To XHTML 1.0? Only if you have a pressing need to use mixed namespaces (such
as XHTML + MathML).

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Chuck wrote:[color=blue]
> Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
> used?[/color]

Yes, conversion from xhtml to html4 makes sence often, especially if
xhtml is not appendix C cnforming. (it is afaik easier to convert it to
html4 than conforming xhtml)

Converion from html4 to xhtml makes no sence for you now, if you need to
ask. It may in future, but it should be trivial.
[color=blue]
> What possible, immediate, benefit would there be? I am at a loss to see
> what, pragmatic, difference it would make.[/color]

Not much, unless you serve XHTML using correct mime type, then you
propably will have some problems.


--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:

https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/buy-opera.html?AID=882173

[Andy Dingley]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:23:18 GMT, "Chuck"
<givemy@ddresso ut.you.must.be. joking> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
>used?[/color]

XHTML is just HTML 4.01 in XML - no other differences.

There are situations for authoring / content management where having
your (*)HTML as XML is useful.

For serving up content, it makes no difference. It's impractical to
serve XHTML _as_ XML and if you stick with Appendix C etc., then XHTML
works just as well with the client browsers as HTML does.

So really it's your call. No strong general reasons either way. If you
have a specific reason for your project, then follow that.

[Gus Richter]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Chuck wrote:[color=blue]
> Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
> used?
>
> What possible, immediate, benefit would there be? I am at a loss to see
> what, pragmatic, difference it would make.[/color]

I am in accord with the sentiments expressed, but I also remember
similar sentiments when CSS was introduced. It took some people a long
time to accept it and they are still playing catch up.

It seems to me that since HTML 5.0 (Web Applications 1.0), although only
in the Working Draft stage presently, will have a relationship with
XHTML. Although it would seem that there will be a division inasmuch as
documents may be authored in XHTML or HTML, it is also clear that the
intent is for a migration from HTML to XHTML. It therefore behooves one
to become familiar with XHTML today and not to be overwhelmed in a few
years from now.

--
Gus

[Chuck]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict


"Gus Richter"
[color=blue]
> It therefore behooves one
> to become familiar with XHTML today and not to be overwhelmed in a few
> years from now.[/color]

I agree with you here, but the reason I asked the question is that I am
putting together the site for a new piece of software aimed at web
designers/developers and, whilst the site has been successfully validated as
HTML 4.01 strict + CSS, I was wondering whether it was worth converting it
to xhtml in order to capitalise on the xhtml "buzz". I am instinctively
loathe to do this as, without a practical reason to perform this exercise,
it feels like a cynical attempt to jump on a conveniently passing bandwagon.

Developing a personal, and corporate, knowledgebase in xhtml is, of course,
an ongoing and essential activity but I firmly believe in using technology
that fits the purpose not just because it is sparkly and gives off
pleasantly intoxicating technical pheremones.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

[Leif K-Brooks]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Gus Richter wrote:[color=blue]
> I am in accord with the sentiments expressed [about XHTML], but I
> also remember similar sentiments when CSS was introduced.[/color]

CSS brings real benefits. XHTML 1.0 Strict has a grand total of zero
benefits over HTML 4.01 Strict unless used in conjunction with specific
applications which require it.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:11:51 GMT, "Chuck"
<givemy@ddresso ut.you.must.be. joking> wrote:
[color=blue]
>putting together the site for a new piece of software aimed at web
>designers/developers and, whilst the site has been successfully validated as
>HTML 4.01 strict + CSS, I was wondering whether it was worth converting it
>to xhtml in order to capitalise on the xhtml "buzz".[/color]

_What_ XHTML buzz ?

XHTML is by and large rejected by the clueful. Just look at the attitude
in this ng. Now I'm an advocate of it, but I seem to be very much in the
minority. Even then, I advocate it mainly for its benefits for internal
content management within a site, not for external publishing. It
becomes increasingly important for republishing onto mobile devices, but
that's still not a market significant enough to drive site design
techniques.

XML is popular. But there's still only a little crossover between the
XML and HTML authoring tasks, and even less between the XML and HTML
authoring communities. Even in these fairly advanced groups, there are
plenty who would rather stick with an old and obsolete technique than
embrace XML for site back-end tasks.

What would be worst of all would be the attitude taken by CIW, in their
more recent training materials. They see XHTML as "HTML 5" and push it
as the only version to author to, but they do this in a complete vacuum
of comparisons to either HTML 4 or XML. As such the tutorials are
confusing to students and the "XHTML in isolation" approach is downright
misleading.

[Chuck]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict


"Andy Dingley"[color=blue]
>
> _What_ XHTML buzz ?[/color]

I'm going to name no names but I have read quite a few "experts" extolling
xhtml as essential and stating that HTML 4.01 is merely a backwater. I don't
see it myself and feel that for general purpose work it's unneccesary (it's
not *that* difficult to convert, after all) but when there's an unhealthy
dose of FUD being bandied about, and when involved in projects such as the
one I am on at the moment, it never hurts to get a second opinion from
another doctor. I am, after all, trying to communicate with web-jockeys at a
level that inspires confidence in the application of this tool, both now and
in the future.

It is the ever-present disease, this latching on to the latest great thing.
There are many corporate dept. heads who are forever attaching innapropriate
acronyms and buzzwords to their specifications and briefs with no
understanding whatsoever of what they are actually asking for.

So, the buzz may sometimes be justified but it is also, frequently, merely
the sound of distressed flies searching for the next meal.

I was just checking that my radar was functioning correctly. Thanks.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:08:41 GMT, "Chuck"
<givemy@ddresso ut.you.must.be. joking> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> _What_ XHTML buzz ?[/color]
>
>I'm going to name no names[/color]

Oh, go on.... 8-)
[color=blue]
>but I have read quite a few "experts" extolling
>xhtml as essential and stating that HTML 4.01 is merely a backwater.[/color]

This is very far from the case. HTML(broken) is an inevitable part of
the web for the forseeable future. So if you need to work "correctly"
with badly broken 3.2, it's clearly ridiculous to make any statement
that 4.01 is a backwater.
[color=blue]
>(it's not *that* difficult to convert, after all)[/color]

Now that starts to be a contentious statement.

There's a big difference between HTML 4.01 (typical) and valid HTML 4.01
Although conversion between valid forms is easy, the general case is no
easier than any other tag soup stirring exercise. There's a faint hope
that XML will somehow improve this, but it won't fix it, it might not
make any improvement, and it may even become worse. Look at the level of
XML well-formedness found in typical RSS feeds.


--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.

[Chuck]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict


"Andy Dingley"[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> >I'm going to name no names[/color]
>
> Oh, go on.... 8-)[/color]

Uh-uh. That's just asking for trouble.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >but I have read quite a few "experts" extolling
> >xhtml as essential and stating that HTML 4.01 is merely a backwater.[/color]
>
> This is very far from the case. HTML(broken) is an inevitable part of
> the web for the forseeable future. So if you need to work "correctly"
> with badly broken 3.2, it's clearly ridiculous to make any statement
> that 4.01 is a backwater.[/color]

I agree.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >(it's not *that* difficult to convert, after all)[/color]
>
> Now that starts to be a contentious statement.[/color]

:-) Indeed. The right mindset (and toolset) helps, I feel. Also a smattering
of natural pedantry, an obsessive nature and an arrogance that feeds a
stubborn refusal to submit in the face of insurmountable odds.
[color=blue]
> Look at the level of
> XML well-formedness found in typical RSS feeds.[/color]

lol. Spaghetti code is spaghetti code, doesn't matter what flavour sauce you
pour over it.

[Henri Sivonen]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

In article <kl0191tbisj1t3 147hlafnt970lj1 rh3s6@4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> _What_ XHTML buzz ?[/color]

You know "better living" and all that.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi

http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

[Andy Dingley]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:13:24 +0300, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.f i>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> _What_ XHTML buzz ?[/color]
>
>You know "better living" and all that.[/color]

I just like the retro feel of XML 8-)

[Gus Richter]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Chuck wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I'm going to name no names but I have read quite a few "experts" extolling
> xhtml as essential and stating that HTML 4.01 is merely a backwater. I don't
> see it myself and feel that for general purpose work it's unneccesary[/color]

As a supporter of W3C's goals and ideals, as I'm sure we all are, it is
incumbent on us to overcome our objections to change. We are informed
that the XHTML family is the next step in the evolution of the Internet
with XHTML 1.0 the first step toward a modular and extensible web, based
on XML providing the bridge for web designers to enter the web of the
future, that of the structured data/XML world, while still being able to
maintain compatibility with today's HTML 4 user agents.

XHTML 1.0 [Rec] provides conformance, backward and future compatibility.
XHTML 1.1 [Rec] proceeds to discontinue deprecated features and to
include Ruby support.
XHTML 2.0 [WD], on the immediate horizon, takes a major step forward
with new modules yet to be supported by browsers.
Web Application 1.0 [WD], on the far horizon (as HTML5.0/XHTML5.0 or
whatever they will end up calling it), updates HTML issues and addresses
Web Applications.

So we support W3C and yet say that we will disregard XHTML and continue
to use HTML 4.01 strict (hopefully, at least) since XHTML has no
improvement or benefit for us. What's wrong with this picture?

--
Gus

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Gus Richter wrote:[color=blue]
> Chuck wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> I'm going to name no names but I have read quite a few "experts"
>> extolling
>> xhtml as essential and stating that HTML 4.01 is merely a backwater. I
>> don't
>> see it myself and feel that for general purpose work it's unneccesary[/color]
>
>
> As a supporter of W3C's goals and ideals, as I'm sure we all are, it is
> incumbent on us to overcome our objections to change. We are informed
> that the XHTML family is the next step in the evolution of the Internet
> with XHTML 1.0 the first step toward a modular and extensible web, based
> on XML providing the bridge for web designers to enter the web of the
> future, that of the structured data/XML world, while still being able to
> maintain compatibility with today's HTML 4 user agents.
>
> XHTML 1.0 [Rec] provides conformance, backward and future compatibility.
> XHTML 1.1 [Rec] proceeds to discontinue deprecated features and to
> include Ruby support.
> XHTML 2.0 [WD], on the immediate horizon, takes a major step forward
> with new modules yet to be supported by browsers.
> Web Application 1.0 [WD], on the far horizon (as HTML5.0/XHTML5.0 or
> whatever they will end up calling it), updates HTML issues and addresses
> Web Applications.
>
> So we support W3C and yet say that we will disregard XHTML and continue
> to use HTML 4.01 strict (hopefully, at least) since XHTML has no
> improvement or benefit for us. What's wrong with this picture?[/color]

I'm certain that Microsoft Word 10 has features that weren't supported
three versions ago, but I don't think I use any of them, because none of
them are useful for the work I use Word to do. I figure that people who
have a use for those features will use them, but I'm not going to
contrive to use them solely for the sake of supporting Microsoft's sense
of purpose.

It's much too early to tell whether most of the customers whose sites I
work on will ever be concerned enough about whether their pages are part
of the worldwide semantic orgy to pay for implementation of every grand
capability about which W3C emits a recommendation.