SitePoint Sponsor |
|
User Tag List
Results 1 to 24 of 24
Thread: Xhtml 2?
-
May 16, 2004, 05:35 #1
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 596
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Xhtml 2?
I just found out from the w3c site that XHTML 2 exists
- so I went ahead and put the doctype in my document:
Code:<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN" "TBD">
Line 4 column 45: value of fixed attribute "xmlns" not equal to default
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2" xml:lang="en">
-
May 16, 2004, 05:59 #2
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 4,095
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
XHTML 2 exists, but is not a qualified, recommend spec yet. That's why it won't validate.
For now, yes, do stick to XHTML 1.1.
-
May 16, 2004, 05:59 #3
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 596
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Ok, I suppose i'll go back in time to XHTML 1.1
.
When will it validate though?
Oh, and the inevitable question: When will IE start supporting the latest standards properly
-
May 16, 2004, 06:05 #4
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 4,095
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
It will probably validate once XHTML 2 becomes a fully qualified, recommended spec (it's still a working draft).
Internet Explorer? Pffft. Never.
-
May 17, 2004, 00:43 #5
-
May 17, 2004, 00:50 #6
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Burpengary, Australia
- Posts
- 4,495
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 1 Thread(s)
Well version 7 of IE is still quite a while away and with the upcoming XAML, I'd say that unless they want to write huge parser engines to support crappy code, they'll be a little more understanding of standards.
-
May 17, 2004, 01:55 #7
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Location
- Sioux City, Iowa
- Posts
- 691
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by bigsi
-
May 17, 2004, 02:11 #8
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Kentucky, USA
- Posts
- 1,099
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
I took a look at XHTML 2 a few times in the past. Luckily it's still a working draft and things will change, because it needs to. For example...
Code:<p> <line>Whatever</line> <line>Whatever</line> <line>Whatever</line> </p>
-
May 17, 2004, 03:13 #9
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 4,095
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Besides which, it completely breaks the model of "do not force line breaks"...
-
May 17, 2004, 05:49 #10
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Holland
- Posts
- 141
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
My 2 cents
Funny you should say that, since your own portfolio doesn't work correctly in Firefox or validate.
it completely breaks the model of "do not force line breaks"...
It does however strike me as a bit superfluous...Regards,
Ronald.
-
May 17, 2004, 05:56 #11
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
- Posts
- 6,316
- Mentioned
- 60 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
XHTML 2.0; try 2010 or something then another 10 years until Microsoft decide to support the technology correctly.
-
May 17, 2004, 05:57 #12
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Location
- Walsall, UK
- Posts
- 1,911
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by Travis
Cheers for the check though - I'm a regular FireBird user now and haven't noticed any problems with my site.
-
May 17, 2004, 07:51 #13
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 406
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
The point of <line> is so that you don't need <br/> tags. In situations where a line-break has clear semantic meaning - such as maybe the lines of a postal address - it indicates a line but leaves the rendering (line break, space, comma or whatever) up to the user-agent.
That's what <line> is for
-
May 17, 2004, 13:17 #14
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 4,095
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
I see.
-
May 17, 2004, 21:59 #15
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Burpengary, Australia
- Posts
- 4,495
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 1 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by bigsi
-
May 18, 2004, 01:03 #16
-
May 18, 2004, 03:25 #17
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 4,095
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
You either used the Firewhat extension, or else you're a version behind.
-
May 18, 2004, 03:26 #18
-
May 18, 2004, 03:28 #19
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 4,095
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
-
May 18, 2004, 11:15 #20
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Bath, UK
- Posts
- 2,498
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by megamanXplosion
You've also looked at an old draft, it is now the <l> element: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-inli...t.html#sec_9.7.
I think the example should be cleaned up, because it does sort of sugest that it could be used for every line, but only every line where there is a line, not a block of text in your example. So:
Code:<p>This is the warp of the loom as it escapes<br /> through the farmhouse window, leaves<br /> the factory behind, slides out the door<br /> </p> <p>of the homely craftswoman who wants to<br /> sell her art at the fair. The threads have<br /> turned silver from traveling so long in the sky<br /> </p>
Code:<p> <l>This is the warp of the loom as it escapes</l> <l>through the farmhouse window, leaves</l> <l>the factory behind, slides out the door</l> </p> <p> <l>of the homely craftswoman who wants to</l> <l>sell her art at the fair. The threads have</l> <l>urned silver from traveling so long in the sky</l> </p>
DouglasLast edited by DougBTX; May 18, 2004 at 11:50.
Hello World
-
May 18, 2004, 11:19 #21
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Bath, UK
- Posts
- 2,498
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by N9ne
What does 1.1 do which you want it to do anyway?
DouglasHello World
-
May 19, 2004, 02:21 #22
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
- Posts
- 6,316
- Mentioned
- 60 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Transitional is only the backwards compatible version (ignoring Frameset of course) Strict onwards should use the relevant MIME.
-
May 19, 2004, 09:49 #23
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 596
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by DougBTX
(yes, I'm a validation freak).
-
May 19, 2004, 10:22 #24
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Bath, UK
- Posts
- 2,498
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by xhtmlcoder
HTML Compatible XHTML 1.0 "may" be sent as text/html. This is the division (compatible vs. non-compatible) and has nothing to do with whether you use a strict or transitional doctype. HTML compatible XHTML 1.0 Strict may be sent as text/html, though all versions of XHTML "should" be sent as application/xhtml+xml, though again with no distinction between strict and transitional.
N9ne: the validator can't tell you whether your alt text is correct alt text, so it can never tell you if a page is perfectly valid
DouglasHello World
Bookmarks