Member
Well, I am a designer. Since tables started to go 'over the window' and the new, better ways of designing webpages came around (separation of content from presentation), I've been reading and doing a lot of web work myself, and embraced Web Standards as soon as possible [i](in fact, I have only a couple of sites designed with tables for layout, and also mind that at the time Netscape 4.7x wasn't dead yet
[/i]
I noticed, that there are some good designers (I think most of them), which prefer XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01 -- see Dan Cederholm, for example, and many, many others. There are also other good designers, which prefer HTML 4.01 Strict (see Roger Johansson, for example, and others).
I prefer XHTML 1.0 Transitional. It's easy for me to code in it, and also, it's a bit newer standard compared to HTML 4.01. Before, I was used only to HTML 4 and to learn XHTML was a bit difficult; now that I mastered XHTML, it's a bit difficult for me to go back to HTML 4. Learning habits, you know
I don't think a web page will work better or worse, based on selected doctype only. Both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 are OK. So, in this case, one may say, it's a matter of personal preference and how widespread is one and the other standard. I believe that currently XHTML 1.0 is more widely used than HTML 4.01. Most of today's web software is XHTML 1.0 oriented, with regards to code it uses in its HTML templates. So I think, using XHTML 1.0 there's no harm done
That's my opinion...
As to HTML 5, (strange? why W3C makes first HTML 3.2, then 4.0, then XHTML 1.0 and [i]then[/i] HTML 5.0?), I don't know too much details yet, and also, some time will have to pass after this is accepted as new standard and [i]before[/i] browsers start supporting it... Till then, HTML 4 and XHTML 1 will be used in 99.99% of the cases
[/i]I noticed, that there are some good designers (I think most of them), which prefer XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01 -- see Dan Cederholm, for example, and many, many others. There are also other good designers, which prefer HTML 4.01 Strict (see Roger Johansson, for example, and others).
I prefer XHTML 1.0 Transitional. It's easy for me to code in it, and also, it's a bit newer standard compared to HTML 4.01. Before, I was used only to HTML 4 and to learn XHTML was a bit difficult; now that I mastered XHTML, it's a bit difficult for me to go back to HTML 4. Learning habits, you know
I don't think a web page will work better or worse, based on selected doctype only. Both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 are OK. So, in this case, one may say, it's a matter of personal preference and how widespread is one and the other standard. I believe that currently XHTML 1.0 is more widely used than HTML 4.01. Most of today's web software is XHTML 1.0 oriented, with regards to code it uses in its HTML templates. So I think, using XHTML 1.0 there's no harm done
That's my opinion...
As to HTML 5, (strange? why W3C makes first HTML 3.2, then 4.0, then XHTML 1.0 and [i]then[/i] HTML 5.0?), I don't know too much details yet, and also, some time will have to pass after this is accepted as new standard and [i]before[/i] browsers start supporting it... Till then, HTML 4 and XHTML 1 will be used in 99.99% of the cases
Administrator
Developer
I still tend to agree that using XHTML is not necessarily a bad thing, even from a purely technical viewpoint. It's encouraging the use of modern browsers which can support XHTML, and forging a transition to a web where XHTML actually does work and is the 'norm' for technical reasons. And, once browsers support it, we can change to the correct valid form with xml header and CDATA blocks and all, without changing the entire form of the markup. For now, it's simply not a big deal to change and works "as-is," so it's not a priority. If we overhaul the template engine or something we'll bring it up again.
Member
optimiced: So you use XHTML because it is a trend. The syntactic difference between HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 is minimal. You only have to remember to "close" every element, even stand alone elements, and form your CDATA blocks correctly in XHTML. The technical differences, though, are giant. XHTML is _not_ HTML. It is an XML document that is very similar to HTML. Serving XHTML as HTML, while it generally works, is incorrect. Appendix C of the specification gives explicit instructions for agent developers to follow if they wish to process XHTML as HTML. Note the distinction "[b]as HTML[/b]." XHTML != HTML. It's that simple.
I am please that you are learning to develop according to the web standards. You will be a better web developer for it. But please take the time to understand the standards you are using. Read the specifications (HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0). Read the articles I linked. And read this new one -- http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html -- that has a slightly different take. Don't just blindly support one specification over another because some prominent designers do. If they are worth the weight their name carries, they have taken the time to understand these things and have made their choice for good reasons.
In regard to your question about HTML 5. As acrylian said, XHTML was meant to be the successor to HTML. But, because of the arguments in my original post (and a few others), the W3C is stepping back from that position. HTML 5 is meant to bring HTML up to modern technology while retaining the simplicity of HTML. See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5 (they even provide a short advantage checklist for HTML and XHTML in the article).
trisweb: I disagree with the stance that XHTML encourages the use of modern browsers. If a web master were to server XHTML documents as XML today, his site would instantly become useless. As acrylian mentioned in the "block right click" thread, a majority of users don't understand, nor care about, the technical details. They just want their web browser to display the data correctly (Joel also goes into this in the article linked above). XHTML documents served as their legitimate type (XML) will not work in any version of IE, and the person using IE (of which there are legion) will call it broken and never revisit.
Like you said, if we overhaul the template engine this point becomes moot. So does your point about easily fixing CDATA in the future. That is why I have suggested that a conversion to HTML from XHTML be tied to an overhaul of the template engine.
I am please that you are learning to develop according to the web standards. You will be a better web developer for it. But please take the time to understand the standards you are using. Read the specifications (HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0). Read the articles I linked. And read this new one -- http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html -- that has a slightly different take. Don't just blindly support one specification over another because some prominent designers do. If they are worth the weight their name carries, they have taken the time to understand these things and have made their choice for good reasons.
In regard to your question about HTML 5. As acrylian said, XHTML was meant to be the successor to HTML. But, because of the arguments in my original post (and a few others), the W3C is stepping back from that position. HTML 5 is meant to bring HTML up to modern technology while retaining the simplicity of HTML. See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5 (they even provide a short advantage checklist for HTML and XHTML in the article).
trisweb: I disagree with the stance that XHTML encourages the use of modern browsers. If a web master were to server XHTML documents as XML today, his site would instantly become useless. As acrylian mentioned in the "block right click" thread, a majority of users don't understand, nor care about, the technical details. They just want their web browser to display the data correctly (Joel also goes into this in the article linked above). XHTML documents served as their legitimate type (XML) will not work in any version of IE, and the person using IE (of which there are legion) will call it broken and never revisit.
Like you said, if we overhaul the template engine this point becomes moot. So does your point about easily fixing CDATA in the future. That is why I have suggested that a conversion to HTML from XHTML be tied to an overhaul of the template engine.
Member
Well, let's say so: It's not only [i]trends[/i], for me.
If today 80% of people use XHTML 1.0, and if XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 are [i]very[/i] close, then why should we go away from XHTML 1.0 now? Why it's evil?
1. If I make my document HTML 4.01 Strict, will it load faster than XHTML 1.0? No.
2. Will it display better? No.
3. Will it affect performance of my browser? No.
4. Will it make display my page a tiny bit better in any browser of today? No.
Any browser of today that understands doctypes, can render perfectly both HTML 4 and XHTML 1.
So, when HTML 5.0 becomes a standard, when browser developers start making their browsers compliant [i]not only[/i] with HTML 3.2, 4.0 and XHTML 1.0, but also with this new standard, then we can start making changes in our ways of developing for Web accordingly. Till this moment comes, I think we're perfectly safe using HTML 4 and XHTML 1, according to our own choice, [i]and[/i] (in some cases, like when developing web software used by others, not only for our personal use), according to what will be most useful for most people. And in the case of "XHTML vs HTML", I think XHTML will be preferred by most. This doesn't meant it's better, but simply preferred.
Finally, I think the discussion now drifts away to shores where a Flame War might start between Web purists, a war over the question, which standard is better and most convenient and righteous, and I don't think we want this
I just wanted to show my own point of view in this matter :-)
[i]// Sidenote: Ah, and yes, I know developers of today *do not* serve correctly the XHTML, precisely because IE cannot understand the document then. But if you ignore this fact, then you can see that even if incorrectly served, the XHTML documents display fine on the Web, just like their HTML brothers, so why should we be worried by this fact? And maybe one day IE will be fixed[/i]
If today 80% of people use XHTML 1.0, and if XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 are [i]very[/i] close, then why should we go away from XHTML 1.0 now? Why it's evil?
1. If I make my document HTML 4.01 Strict, will it load faster than XHTML 1.0? No.
2. Will it display better? No.
3. Will it affect performance of my browser? No.
4. Will it make display my page a tiny bit better in any browser of today? No.
Any browser of today that understands doctypes, can render perfectly both HTML 4 and XHTML 1.
So, when HTML 5.0 becomes a standard, when browser developers start making their browsers compliant [i]not only[/i] with HTML 3.2, 4.0 and XHTML 1.0, but also with this new standard, then we can start making changes in our ways of developing for Web accordingly. Till this moment comes, I think we're perfectly safe using HTML 4 and XHTML 1, according to our own choice, [i]and[/i] (in some cases, like when developing web software used by others, not only for our personal use), according to what will be most useful for most people. And in the case of "XHTML vs HTML", I think XHTML will be preferred by most. This doesn't meant it's better, but simply preferred.
Finally, I think the discussion now drifts away to shores where a Flame War might start between Web purists, a war over the question, which standard is better and most convenient and righteous, and I don't think we want this
I just wanted to show my own point of view in this matter :-)
[i]// Sidenote: Ah, and yes, I know developers of today *do not* serve correctly the XHTML, precisely because IE cannot understand the document then. But if you ignore this fact, then you can see that even if incorrectly served, the XHTML documents display fine on the Web, just like their HTML brothers, so why should we be worried by this fact? And maybe one day IE will be fixed
[/i]
Member
"If today 80% of people use XHTML 1.0, and if XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 are very close, then why should we go away from XHTML 1.0 now? Why it's evil?"
Read what I have written and linked! I have answered that question multiple times.
There are a couple of reasons why those 80% of people use XHTML 1.0. 1) They don't know any better. Someone told them "Use XHTML 1.0" so they did. They don't know the difference, and they probably aren't writing valid XHTML. 2) They know better, but use XHTML because they are lazy. They think XML's strictness will force them to write valid markup, and we know this isn't true. They don't care that they don't have any real reason to use XML over HTML.
I haven't said, at any point in this discussion, no one should ever use XHTML. There are perfectly valid reasons to use it, despite the fact that it has to be served incorrectly. E.G. If you want to use MathML. MathML is a better fit with XHTML than with HTML. MathML is an XML namespace just like XHTML.
"Finally, I think the discussion now drifts away to shores where a Flame War might start between Web purists, a war over the question, which standard is better and most convenient and righteous, and I don't think we want this"
That is not what this discussion is. You seem to be trying to turn it that way by ignoring the evidence and the underlying question, but this discussion is about choosing the proper technology for the job. There isn't one single bit of ZP, as it stands now, that needs XML. The only thing that could possibly justify its use are RSS feeds. But those are not embedded in the XHTML, so they are not much of a factor.
Finally, I have not tried to convince anyone here to use one technology over another in their projects. If you really want to use XHTML, fine, that is your choice. In fact, my suggestion for "fixing" ZP would allow you to use whatever technology you want with ZP. Be it HTML 3.2, 4.0, 5.0, or XHTML. It isn't going to happen any time soon. No one who works on ZP has the time to make the change. But that doesn't mean it can't be discussed.
Read what I have written and linked! I have answered that question multiple times.
There are a couple of reasons why those 80% of people use XHTML 1.0. 1) They don't know any better. Someone told them "Use XHTML 1.0" so they did. They don't know the difference, and they probably aren't writing valid XHTML. 2) They know better, but use XHTML because they are lazy. They think XML's strictness will force them to write valid markup, and we know this isn't true. They don't care that they don't have any real reason to use XML over HTML.
I haven't said, at any point in this discussion, no one should ever use XHTML. There are perfectly valid reasons to use it, despite the fact that it has to be served incorrectly. E.G. If you want to use MathML. MathML is a better fit with XHTML than with HTML. MathML is an XML namespace just like XHTML.
"Finally, I think the discussion now drifts away to shores where a Flame War might start between Web purists, a war over the question, which standard is better and most convenient and righteous, and I don't think we want this
"That is not what this discussion is. You seem to be trying to turn it that way by ignoring the evidence and the underlying question, but this discussion is about choosing the proper technology for the job. There isn't one single bit of ZP, as it stands now, that needs XML. The only thing that could possibly justify its use are RSS feeds. But those are not embedded in the XHTML, so they are not much of a factor.
Finally, I have not tried to convince anyone here to use one technology over another in their projects. If you really want to use XHTML, fine, that is your choice. In fact, my suggestion for "fixing" ZP would allow you to use whatever technology you want with ZP. Be it HTML 3.2, 4.0, 5.0, or XHTML. It isn't going to happen any time soon. No one who works on ZP has the time to make the change. But that doesn't mean it can't be discussed.