xhtml vs html 4 strict

[Lars Eighner]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

In our last episode, <gtudnesXUs28rw _fRVn-og@golden.net>, the
lovely and talented Gus Richter broadcast on
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
[color=blue]
> 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 don't see where the problem is here. Converting a valid HTML
document to a valid XHTML document is trivial. Tidy has never
failed to do it for me in the blink of an eye. The real divide
is between Transitional and Strict. As support for stylesheets
has got much better, in many cases Transitional really has lived
up to its name, and the transition is complete.


--
Lars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/
"Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!"
- President Elmer Bush

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:50:19 -0400, Gus Richter
<gusrichter@net scape.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>As a supporter of W3C's goals and ideals, as I'm sure we all are,[/color]

don't count on that...

[...]
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]
[color=blue]
>What's wrong with this picture?[/color]

Legacy?

You might want to have a look at e.g. the www.siemens.com site.

Do you think that it would ever become possible to say that "our browser
will now only support correct markup and style sheets" and then expect
those who are depending on availability of siemens components to use it?

I'm not saying it's right, only trying to put some things in
perspective.

Siemens is a world wide multi billion operation, they may have invested
multi millions to make most of their product line fully available on
their chosen MS only platform.

The Siemens site is produced in "tag soup de jour" but Bill G. has had a
big ear open towards support of that crap.

Now, where is "David" to come in and win the game with his slingshot?

Quintessence; future browsers will never leave support of tag soup
and/or HTML4.01. They may support new stuff and all end up being "bloat
ware the jour" but as things looks for some considerable future,
HTML4.01 Strict and CSS1 (with a thoughtful addition of features from
CSS2.1) has the best chance to live as close to a "working" www as
possible for a long time to come.

My view is that W3C in it's present form is a loser, companies may find
it interesting to pump their 50 grand a year into it for the "glamouros
reflection on them to support standards" and maybe as some promised way
to provide a pension plan for the pope.

Other than that I think of it as a dead org with a relatively good web
site still available...

--
Rex

[Gus Richter]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:50:19 -0400, Gus Richter
> <gusrichter@net scape.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>As a supporter of W3C's goals and ideals, as I'm sure we all are,[/color]
>
> don't count on that...
>[color=green]
>>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]
>
> Legacy?
>
> You might want to have a look at e.g. the www.siemens.com site.
>
> Do you think that it would ever become possible to say that "our browser
> will now only support correct markup and style sheets" and then expect
> those who are depending on availability of siemens components to use it?
>
> I'm not saying it's right, only trying to put some things in
> perspective.
>
> Siemens is a world wide multi billion operation, they may have invested
> multi millions to make most of their product line fully available on
> their chosen MS only platform.
>
> The Siemens site is produced in "tag soup de jour" but Bill G. has had a
> big ear open towards support of that crap.
>
> Now, where is "David" to come in and win the game with his slingshot?
>
> Quintessence; future browsers will never leave support of tag soup
> and/or HTML4.01. They may support new stuff and all end up being "bloat
> ware the jour" but as things looks for some considerable future,
> HTML4.01 Strict and CSS1 (with a thoughtful addition of features from
> CSS2.1) has the best chance to live as close to a "working" www as
> possible for a long time to come.
>
> My view is that W3C in it's present form is a loser, companies may find
> it interesting to pump their 50 grand a year into it for the "glamouros
> reflection on them to support standards" and maybe as some promised way
> to provide a pension plan for the pope.
>
> Other than that I think of it as a dead org with a relatively good web
> site still available...[/color]

Actually, I was hoping for the detection of a little sarcasm in "as I'm
sure we all are".

I'm not familiar with the Siemens site, but I'm almost certain that the
directive given was to support ANY and ALL browsers on ANY and ALL OS
with ANY and ALL resolutions and screen size. If I were in that position
to decide, with such deep pockets, I would go the same route.

http://www.bigpicturesmallworld.com/Global%20Inc%202/pgs/repcorp/siem/siem_dist.html

states that Siemens had 68,581 Million Euros sales world-wide for 1999.
If they forget about a 1% market share of visitors on the web, it could
amount close to 686 Million Euros in loss of sales. For the rest of us,
support for level 5 browsers is sufficient and anything more is overkill
IMHO and FWIW.

Support of tag soup is important for legacy sites, but that does not
justify new creations of the like. XHTML is "working" and backwards
compatible with level 5 browsers and I see no reason not to use it IMHO
and FWIW.

I'm certain that W3C members have their own agenda, with many (one comes
to mind immediately) speaking out of the side of their mouths, but there
are also some very fine people working to guide their output for the
good of the web. They cannot do otherwise thank goodness for Mozilla
Foundation and Opera. I do not share your pessimism, but believe that we
have come a good long way. So far, so good, and the road ahead looks
also bright, so far anyway.

--
Gus

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Andy Dingley wrote:
[color=blue]
> XHTML is just HTML 4.01 in XML - no other differences.[/color]

It's worse than that. They are _almost_ the same, with no adequate
documentation of changes. The purported comparison at

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs

mentions things that aren't changes (in 4.1; the odd term
"well-formedness" is an XML novelty, but the requirements on nesting are
not), and it omits an unknown number of syntactic changes made silently
when rewriting the DTDs in XML.

For example, the optional id and xmlns attributes have been added to the
<html> tag. The type of the name attribute in <map> was changed from
CDATA to NMTOKEN.

Yucca

[Del Ferguson]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict


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

Not a popular opinion on this forum, but a huge Amen from me.

Del

[Adrienne]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Del Ferguson" <ra19608081
@charter.net> writing in news:Wz1le.1469 7$bD5.10821@fe0 7.lga:
[color=blue]
>
> "Gus Richter" wrote in message...
>[color=green]
>>
>> It therefore behooves one to become familiar with XHTML
>> today and not to be overwhelmed in a few years from now.
>>[/color]
>
> Not a popular opinion on this forum, but a huge Amen from me.
>
> Del
>
>
>[/color]

Agreed. XHTML Strict has helped me keep my documents very lean. No
presentatinal markup. I have always quoted attributes, and I like to write
in lowercase, and I like everything closed. As an author, I really like
it.

As far as serving the correct content type, for server side documents, I
look at the HTTP_ACCEPT header and respond accordingly.

--
Adrienne Boswell

http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info

Please respond to the group so others can share

[Philipp Lenssen]

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]

It's an option if you want to force yourself or a team to be
case-sensitive and to always close tags.

--
Google Blogoscoped

http://blog.outer-court.com

[Spartanicus]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

"Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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]
>
>It's an option if you want to force yourself or a team to be
>case-sensitive and to always close tags.[/color]

XHTML documents must use lower case for all HTML element and attribute
names. That's not the same as being case sensitive.

Using XHTML doesn't force anything on anyone. Validating against an
XHTML DTD will fail if elements and/or attribute names are not lower
case, and if elements are not closed. This is not particular to XHTML
DTDs.

For the OP, XHTML drawbacks and myths:

http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

--
Spartanicus

[Guy Macon]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict




Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
>For the OP, XHTML drawbacks and myths:
>http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm[/color]

Connection refused. :(

[Spartanicus]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Guy Macon <_see.web.page_ @_www.guymacon. com_> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>For the OP, XHTML drawbacks and myths:
>>http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm[/color]
>
>Connection refused. :([/color]

Temporary copy:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/spartanicus/no-xhtml.htm

--
Spartanicus

[Guy Macon]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict




Spartanicus wrote:[color=blue]
>
>Guy Macon <_see.web.page_ @_www.guymacon. com_> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>For the OP, XHTML drawbacks and myths:
>>>http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm[/color]
>>
>>Connection refused. :([/color]
>
>Temporary copy:
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/spartanicus/no-xhtml.htm[/color]

Works fine. Thanks!

Minor quibble: You say "Lot's of Lemmings are jumping off
cliffs." No they aren't. Look here:

http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlife_news.view_article&articles_id=56&issue_id=6

What do you think of developing the page as XHTML and then
changing it to HTML just before uploading to the web server?

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:50:30 +0000, Guy Macon
<_see.web.page_ @_www.guymacon. com_> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Spartanicus wrote:[color=green]
>>Temporary copy:
>>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/spartanicus/no-xhtml.htm[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Works fine. Thanks![/color]
[color=blue]
>What do you think of developing the page as XHTML and then
>changing it to HTML just before uploading to the web server?[/color]

Total waste of energy.

Use HTML markup directly and learn to use available checkup tools, even
available on line if you can not find a way to install local versions.

Maybe this would give you an idea on how to proceed.

http://www.css.nu/markup/markup-entities.html

--
Rex
(who wonders why SGMLNORM seems to totally forgotten
as a HTML strict doc instance checkup tool)

[Spartanicus]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Guy Macon <_see.web.page_ @_www.guymacon. com_> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/spartanicus/no-xhtml.htm[/color]
>
>What do you think of developing the page as XHTML and then
>changing it to HTML just before uploading to the web server?[/color]

From the page: "If your authoring process benefits from using XML then
by all means use it. It does not form an argument for serving XHTML to
clients."

--
Spartanicus

[Philipp Lenssen]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > It's an option if you want to force yourself or a team to be
> > case-sensitive and to always close tags.[/color]
>
> XHTML documents must use lower case for all HTML element and attribute
> names. That's not the same as being case sensitive.[/color]

XHTML is case-sensitive for elements. HTML4 is not. How is that not
being case-sensitive?
[color=blue]
>
> Using XHTML doesn't force anything on anyone. Validating against an
> XHTML DTD will fail if elements and/or attribute names are not lower
> case, and if elements are not closed. This is not particular to XHTML
> DTDs.[/color]

But in HTML4, you may leave certain elements open. This is particular
to XHTML/XML then. In SGML you may or may not decide in the doctype if
it ought to be optional, and so in XHTML you must always force the
closing.

--
Google Blogoscoped

http://blog.outer-court.com

[Spartanicus]

Re: xhtml vs html 4 strict

"Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com> wrote:

[XHTML]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > It's an option if you want to force yourself or a team to be
>> > case-sensitive and to always close tags.[/color]
>>
>> XHTML documents must use lower case for all HTML element and attribute
>> names. That's not the same as being case sensitive.[/color]
>
>XHTML is case-sensitive for elements. HTML4 is not. How is that not
>being case-sensitive?[/color]

Because upper case is invalid in XHTML element and attribute names.
In Javascript function names are case sensitive, Foobar!=fooBar, but
both are valid.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Using XHTML doesn't force anything on anyone. Validating against an
>> XHTML DTD will fail if elements and/or attribute names are not lower
>> case, and if elements are not closed. This is not particular to XHTML
>> DTDs.[/color]
>
>But in HTML4, you may leave certain elements open. This is particular
>to XHTML/XML then.[/color]

Only for empty elements, which unlike closing non empty elements has no
relevance for a parser. In fact a conforming HTML parser would choke on
XHTML.

--
Spartanicus