Xhtml strict 1.0 vs xhtml 1.1

[fibit]

Which one is better? XHTML STRICT 1.0 or XHTML 1.1
_______________ __
Smslån inflatable bouncer

[drhowarddrfine]

It depends but it can be argued you have no use for either. XHTML1.1 is XML and must be served as XML, but I doubt you have your server set up to serve XML web pages. XHTML1.0 must be served as application/xhtml+xml to take advantage of xhtml but, again, I doubt that you do.

But, even if you did serve xhtml properly, only modern browsers can work with XHTML. Internet Explorer does not. So until IE understands xhtml (IE8 will not) or it goes away (wishful thinking) serving xhtml may be rather useless.

So XHTML winds up being served as text/html and interpreted by the browser as broken HTML, "tag soup". Most browsers handle that pretty well but, like I said, it can be argued there is no point in doing so.

[Death Slaught]

Isn't XHTML backwards compatible?

- Death

[drhowarddrfine]

That depends on what you mean by compatibility. If you serve the page as xhtml, then IE will choke on it. If you serve it as html, then it's not xhtml and browsers will treat it as html. If you want xhtml to work the best with html-only browsers, then you have to make changes. All that doesn't sound like 100% compatibility to me. Following these guidelines is best.

[clai83]

Just a small note. XHTML 2.0 is not backwards compatible. with XHTML 1.1 or 1.0 . I personally have been brain washed to work with XHTML so, when someone asks me some HTML 4.0 or HTML 4.01 question, and they ask me to do it without style sheets, I go completely blank.

Anyway XHTML in 1.1 has become modular and its a big step. XHTML 1.1 takes into account mobile browsers and such. however, for all intensive purposes at this time, and as long as MSIE is around, you will be making a lot mre XHTML 1.0 pages than XHTML 1.1 pages. Either that, or you will have to make both versions.