What is XML?

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

Dec 4, 2000, 12:22
DaveMaxwell

From what I understand, the purpose is to make the validation easier. IE allows for bad coding styles because it allows you to forget to close tags( seems to be the big culprit, though table tags come a close second) or mix and match the order of the tags and it will still figure out what you mean. Other products like Netscape and Opera are more scrutinous about coding standards.

Good coding with closing tags make it easier to figure out where something starts and stops, thus making it faster to render. Also one less issue to try and allow for cross compatibility for.

I think a big part of it is to force people to go back to the good coding standards of the past. Just MHO though.
Dec 4, 2000, 13:05
TWTCommish

That's not what I mean exactly - closing ALL tags is just fine and dandy, but why with the new format, IE: ? Why not ? Just doesn't make much sense to me.
Dec 4, 2000, 13:52
Robo

Well if you have a document like:

Hello
 
Welcome

The second tag is quite useless, so the guys creating XML/XHTML decided a shortcut would be which sort of merge the two tags to one.

But for XHTML docs, some older browser might not have a clue what is, so they put a space in it , like , which makes it work.
Dec 4, 2000, 13:59
TWTCommish

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, I thought it was like this:

Hello
 
Welcome

Makes more sense now...thanks! :)
Dec 4, 2000, 20:07
Website Rob

You are correct Dave, in stating that: "(ie ), though I believe this might cause more problems" as there are no such tags.

The easiest way to remember is to know that in XML, every starting tag must be paired with a closing tag. Since XHTML is a hybrid of XML & HTML—and there are some tags in HTML that are not pairs and do not have a closing tag—the /> is used as an identifier for a single closed tag.

i.e. META, BR, HR, INPUT, IMAGE, LINK, etc.

In other cases, tags that had "optional" closing tags are no longer optional and must closed.

i.e. P, LI, OPTION

And perhaps most confusing of all, since all attributes must be in quotes, is when to use the quotes.

i.e. <hr noshade="noshade" /> <input type="text" name="name" maxlength="30" checked="checked" />

Like most things, the best way to get familiar with XHTML is to start using it. ;)

TIP: the above is also legal code using an HTML 4.x DOCTYPE "if" you do not use the /> within the <head> </head> tag, and only use the /> within the <body> </body> tag. This allows for learning XHTML code without having to recode all previous pages. And if your HTML Validator gives you error messages, you will know it's time to either use the Validator links previously mentioned, or get a new Validator. :D

<Edited by Website Rob on 12-04-2000 at 08:18 PM>
Dec 5, 2000, 02:21
jumpthru

Let me get this straight.

Hello, 
World!

or

Hello, 
World!

Why not just make a standard. All tags are now <whatever><whatever /> (of for 'one tag' tag's ) or all tags are now <whatever></whatever>. But why mix and match. That will only confuse people, and the goal should be to standardise the system...
Dec 5, 2000, 04:52
Robo

Well it's pretty pointless to do everytime you wanna make a new line, and also, will valid as normal HTML and XHTML, so the new tag's actually backward compatible.
Dec 5, 2000, 06:03
Website Rob

Not sure where the confusion came in, but is not a valid tag.
Dec 5, 2000, 09:35
TWTCommish

I think Nate was proposing it as valid in the next version of HTML.

Now that It's been explained to me, I think I see the point here: it's a pain to use a closing tag for BR, HR, etc. So instead, the starting tag and closing tag become one. is both tags, since the BR tags are not something you want to enclose other things in anyway.

Now that I "get it", it makes sense.
Dec 5, 2000, 10:00
Website Rob

Cool. * :cool:
Dec 5, 2000, 21:20
jumpthru

i think i get it. so in the next version of html/xhtml or whatever, will be valid, since they want you to close every single tag? and then a shortcut for that would be ? why not make the shortcut ...
Dec 6, 2000, 08:58
DaveMaxwell

Because the slash signifies a closing tag. The point is to make sure there is a closing tag for every open tag. Allowing the /> at the end of the tag makes it a closing and an opening tag.
Dec 9, 2000, 19:11
Michel V

What's the point in closing a ? Would you type this:
Line 1 
Line 2
?

And if <img> has a closing tag, can you place something between <img> and <img />

...Just being curious. :)

(as for the i'll get used to it because it looks like the in WML)
Dec 9, 2000, 19:25
Robo

That's the whole point, you would NOT type 

You would type:

Line 1 
Line 2

Same goes for image, you would simply type:

<img src="blah.jpg" />

Not:

<img src="blah.jpg"></img>
Dec 9, 2000, 19:34
Elledan

So tags that are in HTML 4 single (like the img and br tag) will always look like this:

<sometag />

and tags who come in pairs like this:

<sometag>somethingelse<sometag />

am I right?
Dec 9, 2000, 22:27
Website Rob

Quote:

Originally posted by Elledan
So tags that are in HTML 4 single (like the img and br tag) will always look like this:

<sometag />

and tags who come in pairs like this:

<sometag>somethingelse<sometag />

am I right?

Almost ;)

<sometag>somethingelse</sometag>
Dec 10, 2000, 11:54
jumpthru

Quote:

Originally posted by Website Rob

Quote:

Originally posted by Elledan
So tags that are in HTML 4 single (like the img and br tag) will always look like this:

<sometag />

and tags who come in pairs like this:

<sometag>somethingelse<sometag />

am I right?

Almost ;)

<sometag>somethingelse</sometag>

Okay, thats my excact point. They are trying to make a standard, but they aren't. The way website rob, said should be the way they do it.
Dec 10, 2000, 14:47
Elledan

Yup, I'm lost as well :)

This isn't a really logical standard...
Dec 10, 2000, 14:58
Website Rob

May I suggest a re-reading of this page (specifically my post of: 12-04-2000 06:07 PM) and see if that helps clear up any confusion. :)
Dec 10, 2000, 17:09
TWTCommish

I don't see why all tags need to be closed. In tags like that need to be closed right away anyway, why not just make " " both an opening and closing tag, instead of " "? It serves no purpose.

And BTW: I think it's best to keep HTML as much like it is now as possible. Change is pointless unless it improves things - changing the format of closing tags is odd, and, in the case of some tags, seems pointless.
Dec 10, 2000, 17:56
jumpthru

Quote:

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I don't see why all tags need to be closed. In tags like that need to be closed right away anyway, why not just make " " both an opening and closing tag, instead of " "? It serves no purpose.

And BTW: I think it's best to keep HTML as much like it is now as possible. Change is pointless unless it improves things - changing the format of closing tags is odd, and, in the case of some tags, seems pointless.

That was excactly what I was trying to say in a earlier post, I think I lost my point as I got confused later on...but anyway. That was my excact point...why not just make the opening and closing tag, rather than ? And then have double tags be <a></a> and single tags be ?
Dec 10, 2000, 21:14
Website Rob

I do believe you are starting to see the value & beauty of XML - unfortunately you are looking at it from the other side of the fence. ;)

On this side of the fence we are jumping for joy because no longer will there be three different ways of coding a page. Theoretically there is "one" Standard for HTML. In reality there is the Standard which some Browsers understand, the Standard the some Browsers don't understand, and Browser specific code. XHTML is just the in-between stage for jumping to XML, where improper code will not display. What could be more simpler.

Right now, Browser specific code is a bit easier to figure out but the first two, give most people a headache when creating Web pages. Trying to figure out what Browser doesn't understand what code is the most difficult thing of all. Some coders take the short route and code for a specific Browser and to heck with the rest. Well in the business world, an attitude like that won't fly. Image how much business a Shopping Mall would lose, if all the parking spaces were made for small cars only!

Business Web sites are geared for maximum return and U.S. Goverment Web sites are now required to be handicap accessable - just like parking lots. You say why learn the new stuff? I say who codes in HTML 2.0? The computer world changes very quickly and people who design Web sites either constantly learn or fall behind. The choice is ours to make.
Dec 10, 2000, 21:30
jumpthru

Who codes in 2.0? People trying to not be browser specific...there are still people using old browsers that use 2.0...

I think though that this is good. They should make a standard on lowercase or caps, not closing tags, no quotes/quotes (which is right?). And if something doesn't work, then the page doesn't show. Just like programming in C++, or php...
Dec 13, 2000, 00:44
CryingWolf

Quote:

Originally posted by jumpthru

Quote:

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I don't see why all tags need to be closed. In tags like that need to be closed right away anyway, why not just make " " both an opening and closing tag, instead of " "? It serves no purpose.

And BTW: I think it's best to keep HTML as much like it is now as possible. Change is pointless unless it improves things - changing the format of closing tags is odd, and, in the case of some tags, seems pointless.

That was excactly what I was trying to say in a earlier post, I think I lost my point as I got confused later on...but anyway. That was my excact point...why not just make the opening and closing tag, rather than ? And then have double tags be <a></a> and single tags be ?

I would think that is because would still be compatable with older browsers unlike which might confuse older browsers into thinking two line breaks???

(correct me if I am wrong cuz I haven't really been studying any of this in a few years.)

 might still confuse older browsers but might only mean line break in older browsers and in xml were all tags need a closing tag -- would mean a closing tag with no opening tag; could work but older browsers my break two lines or other wierd effects; has an opening tag and a closer, older browsers will probably just treat it as a , xml is happy cuz you open then close,,,

My question would then be would xml allow other tags to be opened and closed on the same line with again wierd effects???

ie <HTML "that is all folkes" /> ok a really stupid use that would make alot of browers choke but still a point
Dec 13, 2000, 00:57
CryingWolf

Oh and one more point

it seems to me that:

 in XML would mean opening tag with no closer there fore you don't fulfill the closing tag for every opening tag

P.S. I have always tried to keep my hand coding tight with always useing closing tags even when they are optional like

 some text 

to me this is the proper way I learned how to code and just a with no close seems like I am breaking a rule

I know it seems weird but really how many tags are we talking here???

for the ones that I use the most really just <img /> <hr /> etc... really without looking maybe 5 at the most???

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page