Xhtml 2?

**N9ne** · May 16, 2004, 04:35

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">

I then went to the validator at w3c, and got these 2 things:

Warning:

Unknown namespace («http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2») for text/html document!

and...

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">

What can I do to fix this? Or should I just stick to XHTML 1.1?

**cfm** · May 16, 2004, 04:59

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.

**N9ne** · May 16, 2004, 04:59

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

**cfm** · May 16, 2004, 05:05

It will probably validate once XHTML 2 becomes a fully qualified, recommended spec (it's still a working draft).

Internet Explorer? Pffft. Never.

Si · May 16, 2004, 23:43

I think Microsoft need a reality check with supporting web-standards. Ever since they invented that bloody marquee tag......

**Cam** · May 16, 2004, 23:50

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.

**Travis** · May 17, 2004, 00:55

Originally Posted by bigsi

I think Microsoft need a reality check with supporting web-standards. Ever since they invented that bloody marquee tag......

Funny you should say that, since your own portfolio doesn't work correctly in Firefox or validate.

**megamanXplosion** · May 17, 2004, 01:11

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>

That's crazy! I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope that they will remove such nonsense. Preserving structure in documents is important, but that is fanatical...

**cfm** · May 17, 2004, 02:13

Besides which, it completely breaks the model of "do not force line breaks"...

**ronaldb66** · May 17, 2004, 04:49

Funny you should say that, since your own portfolio doesn't work correctly in Firefox or validate.

Unsolicited site reviews aren't always appreciated, especially if they are used as an attempt to devaluate someone's statement, even when in jest.

it completely breaks the model of "do not force line breaks"...

Not necessarily; I didn't check the specs, but having each line enveloped in a seperate line element doesn't explicitly mean line breaks, too. If the line elements are defined as default inline level elements they will just continue on as regular inline content and element do now.
It does however strike me as a bit superfluous...

**xhtmlcoder** · May 17, 2004, 04:56

XHTML 2.0; try 2010 or something then another 10 years until Microsoft decide to support the technology correctly.

Si · May 17, 2004, 04:57

Originally Posted by Travis

Funny you should say that, since your own portfolio doesn't work correctly in Firefox or validate.

I'm not fussed mate - I designed that site over two years ago before I had learned all about true standards. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to upgrade it so I'm not too fussed about it. The website served its purpose and got me a job as a web designer.

Cheers for the check though - I'm a regular FireBird user now and haven't noticed any problems with my site.

**brothercake** · May 17, 2004, 06:51

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

**cfm** · May 17, 2004, 12:17

I see.

**Cam** · May 17, 2004, 20:59

Originally Posted by bigsi

Cheers for the check though - I'm a regular FireBird user now and haven't noticed any problems with my site.

Some people should check at the Mozilla site before emphasising program names

Si · May 18, 2004, 00:03

Explain the attached then....

(where's my attached file???)

**cfm** · May 18, 2004, 02:25

You either used the Firewhat extension, or else you're a version behind.

Si · May 18, 2004, 02:26

EEP! Time to upgrade then!!

**cfm** · May 18, 2004, 02:28

**DougBTX** · May 18, 2004, 10:15

Originally Posted by megamanXplosion

That's crazy! I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope that they will remove such nonsense. Preserving structure in documents is important, but that is fanatical...

I think you've missed the point somewhat

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>

becomes

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>

And every other example stays the same.

Douglas

**DougBTX** · May 18, 2004, 10:19

Originally Posted by N9ne

Or should I just stick to XHTML 1.1?

Stick with XHTML 1.0 Strict, then you don't get messed up with the MIME type problems if you are doing valid XHTML 1.1. (If you don't use the MIME type for XHTML 1.1, you might as well be writing HTML 3.02; if you are using the correct MIME type it won't work in IE)

What does 1.1 do which you want it to do anyway?

Douglas

**xhtmlcoder** · May 19, 2004, 01:21

Transitional is only the backwards compatible version (ignoring Frameset of course) Strict onwards should use the relevant MIME.

**N9ne** · May 19, 2004, 08:49

Originally Posted by DougBTX

Stick with XHTML 1.0 Strict, then you don't get messed up with the MIME type problems if you are doing valid XHTML 1.1. (If you don't use the MIME type for XHTML 1.1, you might as well be writing HTML 3.02; if you are using the correct MIME type it won't work in IE)

What does 1.1 do which you want it to do anyway?

Douglas

Nothing especially, I just like being up to date I guess. I'm not sure of the differences of XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1, but it doesn't bother me as long as my page validates

(yes, I'm a validation freak).

**DougBTX** · May 19, 2004, 09:22

Originally Posted by xhtmlcoder

Transitional is only the backwards compatible version (ignoring Frameset of course) Strict onwards should use the relevant MIME.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-typ...s.html#summary

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

Douglas

The SitePoint Forums have moved.

User Tag List

Thread: Xhtml 2?

Thread Tools

Display

Xhtml 2?

My 2 cents

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions