So, I stand by my comment.
So, I stand by my comment.
I don't complain about browser's problems?
It might create competition in the 'addons' area, but not in terms of supporting newer HTML standards and innovating in that area. Competition is a GOOD thing in the world!
Anyways, opinions are great, and so is competition ;)
HTML versions have nothing to do with cross browser compatibility issues, so I don't see how this thread would be relevant when discussing a solution to cross browser compatibility.
The standards are fine, it's the browsers taking their time supporting them, and the users taking even longer to upgrade that's the problem.
IE8 doesn't support XHTML, but what does that have to do with learning it? It might influence how you serve it, whether you use it etc, but not about which version of HTML you should learn first. The answer to that would probably be the same independent of what browsers could do at the moment.
I will close it by saying: W3C should go of the way of Netscape, and become non-existent. To replace it, the Corps should control the user end of the web. Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, and Google should make a browser-path that all have to adapt to. Put it in writing. Have the browser manufactures meet 4 times a year go give each other a progress update.
That will structure a chaos internet. Just turn the web into a business format.
What tags does your html have? What attributes? Are you sure they are understood by browsers? There are html standards old as granny browsers don't support well even today.
Browsers do treat differently XHTML 1.0 from HTML 4.01 and from HTML5. Hell, many don't even handle XHTML well, not to mention many don't have HTML5 implemented yet.
And don't come and tell me now XHTML 1.0 and HTML5 are not html! DTD does matter. You're stumbling about in technical implementations and mix them up with specifications.
et violá, another HTML5 savvy out the assembly line. ;)Code:
There is so much semnatic mixup in HTML5, as oppossed to HTML 4.01, and we are arguing years over properly learning HTML 4.01. Guess how long HTML5 would take to PROPERLY learn? Certainly not a week-end, since now there are two specs for HTML5, and these two don't say the same thing always.
But I see what you and samanime are saying: any beginner should just start throwing tags in a text file, and the damn browsers better do something good about it, or else they'll complain and ***** and come to SPF forums for somebody to do the job for them learning nothing in the process. ;)
1. HTML compatible XHTML 1.0 may be sent with the “text/html”.
2. You can serve XHTML documents as “application/xhtml+xml” to IE8- also, you just need to know how. ;)
3. Namespaces, a XHTML (and XML) feature, can be use since IE5.
Three points of hard facts. Got anything else than your word? :)
Three (shady) responses, that confirm, nonetheless, what I'm saying: IE does support XHTML - interpreting and rendering. :)
Something you said makes me believe HTML and XHTML aren't that much different for this to be a problem?! ;)
Not that I agree with that. In fact, I was stating the opposite since the beginning: HTML and XHTML are a lot different. You seem to think otherwise. So why should it be so much of a concern if XHTML is served as text/html? Just because of the self closing tags and a simple thing and a few facts about error checking? :)
XHTML Transitional MAY be sent as text/html like Μitică said - Appendix C. But to be honest we are veering way off topic now and the original question has been solved. The main noticeable difference being the browser uses an XML Processor when served as real XHTML under (application/xhtml+xml) thus MUST be 'well-formed'; else draconian error handling occurs and you get a FATAL error report.
I thought if you used the XML header (which you should for any application of XML), you couldn't send it as text/html
I simply said that for the point of view of someone learning the language, and the syntax, self closing tags is the biggest difference. For other people, other differences are more of a concern. It's all about context.
I have to disagree with you ULTiMATE about using XHTML first. I've seen people teach XHTML first and it generally causes more problems then it helps. There was never anything vital that was a problem, but it seemed to actually create lazier programmers rather than stricter programmers (like you'd expect). In my experience teaching web design, it seems that teaching (and learning) HTML 4.01 Strict and ensuring it validates creates more thorough developers. Really though, as long as you're being strict about your coding, they're both roughly the same.
Did you start running marathons before you could crawl? Did you start doing Calculus before you could count to 3? Things need to be taken one step at a time. You start by learning the required elements. Then you add a few more. Then you add a few more, etc.Quote:
But I see what you and samanime are saying: any beginner should just start throwing tags in a text file, and the damn browsers better do something good about it, or else they'll complain and ***** and come to SPF forums for somebody to do the job for them learning nothing in the process.
No, but I wasn't advised to first test breathing under water only to be able to discover pleasently surprised the ease of breathing the air on the surface.
This is tech knowledge. And a scripted language. This means everybody can have a shot at it, but not everybody will do a decent job. Unless they are given good advice.
certainly doesn't teach you how to crawl first, it teaches you how to dig your self a hole. Especially since HTML5 WILL use XHTML HEAVILY.
And it forces newbies to belive XHTML is for nothing. Never touch it. That's not good advice. And that "single tag" elements must be closed. That means all elements having optional closing tag must be closed the way you've showed above: <p />? ;) At least use the proper tech language: empty (or better yet, void) elements. And you do know XHTML syntax for self-closing tags is <br/>, right? At least explain the student why you give him advice against XHTML syntax. Confusion is not the best mood for learning.
A bad advice is not an act of benevolence. It can be counted quite the contrary.
Tell-tales like "I've seen...", "In my experience..." tell us more about the teachers and less about the students. ;) Tell-tales can't replace good tech knowledge. If the student doesn't understand, the student asks again. The teacher explains better. Until student gets it. Simple as that.
If you give the student too much at once, they get frustrated and give up.
Knowing that the only difference they MUST know to write valid XHTML (ignoring the text/html thing) is that they must close self-closing tags when they are a beginner is far more useful than explaining to them the difference between text/html and application/xhtml+xml... especially considering they are likely to start out locally (without Apache/IIS) or on a shared host, both of which they have no real control over the MIME type that is served for each page.
Likewise they're better off learning about PNG, JPG, and GIF before learning about SVGs, because the former are supported much better, even though SVG is superior in many regards.
When you learn C++ you don't start out from day one using classes and object-oriented programming patterns, even though those are vastly superior to procedural approaches. You start with the main function. Then you do an output to the console. Then you learn about variables. Then you do something with those variables. Then you learn about input. Then you learn about conditionals. Then you learn about loops. Then you learn about functions.... and eventually you work your way, step-by-step, to how professionals do things.
I've taught for many years and done curriculum development for web design courses. You aren't telling me anything I didn't already know. However, there are steps to this and overloading a student at the very beginning will only result in confusion, frustration, and eventually failure and them giving up.
I wish I could believe you. :)
Feeding wrong information may be your thing when teaching, not mine. Yeah, that's right, I used to be a teacher. ;)
And no, starting off with the correct info, that's what makes a student tick. Challenge him constantly. Playing him for a stupid doesn't work so much, unless your students are preschool. Learning that you thought he was too dumb to understand some pretty basic stuff will only tick him off. He will take it as he should: you didn't have enough info to make it simpler to understand, and chose to feed him false info instead.
And finally, please admit you were giving FALSE and WRONG info, and let's be done with it.
I know I'm done with it. I'm a stubborn man my self, and it shows here on SPF plenty, but I don't enjoy being stubborn just to be right. I defend an idea so that others may go harder against it and give good reasoning and understanding to change my mind where I'm wrong. Hiding ignorance it's not the same with knowledge testing in the process of learning. I'm not hiding my ignorance, I show it so I can learn.