xhtml or html?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • Matthias Gutfeldt
    #16
    Re: xhtml or html?

    Geoff Berrow wrote:[color=blue]
    > I noticed that Message-ID: <c1fj05$cif$1@p hys-news1.kolumbus. fi> from
    > Wÿrm contained the following:
    >[color=green]
    >>I am not sure if it can be counted as argument or any good reason, but
    >>depending doctype, browser might end up different "rendering mode"
    >>
    >>http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles...tch/table.html
    >>
    >>(see difference between strict html 4.01, transitional 4.01 and transitional
    >>4.01 with "loose" doctype rendiering modes for browsers)...[/color]
    >
    >
    > Indeed, but all this does is show that if I use <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
    > "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    > my pages will be rendered in a standard way. It doesn't say anything
    > about the advantages of strict, AFAICS.[/color]

    Indeed, it doesn't. The difference between Strict and Transitional is
    not so much the rendering mode, but rather the available set of elements
    and attributes.

    [color=blue]
    > I'm a little cynical about this as you can tell. I think some coders
    > tend to self-flagellate. Emotive words like 'strict' versus
    > 'transitional' and 'loose' encourage this and tend to create impressions
    > which do not hold up to scrutiny.[/color]

    Definitely. HTML Strict and HTML Transitional are just different DTDs,
    with different features.

    But the difference between Standard mode and Quirks mode is very real
    (and a major PITA).


    Matthias

      Comment

      • Andy Hassall
        #17
        Re: xhtml or html?

        On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:44:39 +0100, Stephen Poley
        <sbpoleySpicedH amTrap@xs4all.n l> wrote:
        [color=blue][color=green]
        >> But HTML Strict does rule out quite a lot of stuff - is it really
        >>cost-efficient to have a CSS class for a one-off bit of highlighting?[/color]
        >
        >??. Strict doesn't stop you from using inline styles if you want that.[/color]
        [...][color=blue]
        >One could as easily turn that around. If you make appropriate
        >separation of content and presentation, which I gather you accept as a
        >good thing, what's the advantage of validating against a DTD with a lot
        >of legacy junk in it?[/color]

        Ah, yes of course. I wasn't thinking straight there. Possibly I meant is it
        worth the bother having to write

        <span style='font-weight: bold;'>xxx</span>

        Instead of just

        <b>xxx</b>

        ... but this isn't much of a point really, so I withdraw that objection :-)

        --
        Andy Hassall <andy@andyh.co. uk> / Space: disk usage analysis tool
        <http://www.andyh.co.uk > / <http://www.andyhsoftwa re.co.uk/space>

          Comment

          • Cameron
            #18
            Re: xhtml or html?

            R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:[color=blue]
            > Cameron <foo@bar.invali d> wrote in message news:<c1ep3s$i5 t$1@newsg3.svr. pol.co.uk>...
            >[color=green]
            >>R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
            >>[color=darkred]
            >>>I would like to know what HTML standard will be better for PHP
            >>>webapplicati ons? Right now, I use HTML 4.01 Transitional. And like to
            >>>know what *you* PHP programmers prefer? and which is good? TIA.
            >>>[/color]
            >>
            >>Well it doesn't really matter what version of HTML you use (XHTML is
            >>still HTML just newer) they are two different things, PHP is handled
            >>server side, (X)HTML handled client side, providing you output it
            >>correctly either will work, I however use XHTML as I prefer it.[/color]
            >
            >
            > Thanks for your reply. IIRC, since PHP 4, they've added something
            > like XHTML compliant especially in nl2br(), highlight_file( ),... But,
            > I hardly seen such XHTMLed PHP scripts. May I know the reason behind
            > your preference?
            >[/color]

            My reasoning was based mostly on the fact that it's technically a new
            version of HTML, it's much cleaner in my opinion than previous versions,
            and it's backwards compatible, so really I couldn't see a reason not to
            use it.

            ~Cameron

              Comment

              • Phil Roberts
                #19
                Re: xhtml or html?

                With total disregard for any kind of safety measures Andy Hassall
                <andy@andyh.co. uk> leapt forth and uttered:
                [color=blue]
                > Ah, yes of course. I wasn't thinking straight there. Possibly I
                > meant is it worth the bother having to write
                >
                > <span style='font-weight: bold;'>xxx</span>
                >
                > Instead of just
                >
                > <b>xxx</b>
                >
                > ... but this isn't much of a point really, so I withdraw that
                > objection :-)
                >[/color]

                No, because you should be using <strong></strong> anyway.

                --
                Phil Roberts | Dork Pretending To Be Hard | http://www.flatnet.net/

                  Comment

                  • Stephen Poley
                    #20
                    Re: xhtml or html?

                    On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:04:35 -0600, Phil Roberts
                    <philrob@HOLYfl atnetSHIT.net> wrote:
                    [color=blue]
                    >With total disregard for any kind of safety measures Andy Hassall
                    ><andy@andyh.co .uk> leapt forth and uttered:
                    >[color=green]
                    >> Ah, yes of course. I wasn't thinking straight there. Possibly I
                    >> meant is it worth the bother having to write
                    >>
                    >> <span style='font-weight: bold;'>xxx</span>
                    >>
                    >> Instead of just
                    >>
                    >> <b>xxx</b>
                    >>
                    >> ... but this isn't much of a point really, so I withdraw that
                    >> objection :-)
                    >>[/color]
                    >
                    >No, because you should be using <strong></strong> anyway.[/color]

                    But if you want to use <b>, no-one is stopping you. It's in the Strict
                    DTD (though some people think it shouldn't have been).

                    --
                    Stephen Poley

                      Comment

                      Previous 1 2 template Next
                      Working...