Use XHTML or HTML 4.01 Doctype?

**jag5311** · Apr 7, 2005 06:18

I recently read an interesting post online (can't find the link), but it was about whether using XHTML, especially as a doctype, is really necessary if you don't plan on using any of the extra's that come with having an xhtml doctype, especially when IE has trouble being served that type of doctype (I might need some clarifying on this).

Basically, keep your markup clean, close your tags, keep them lowercased, but is having the XHTML doctype necessary? Do you need an XHTML Transitional docytpe in order to have XML files on your site?

With that being said, lets say I was to use an HTML 4.01 doctype. Can I still close certain links like this

<tag /> ???

Thanks
Bryan

**AutisticCuckoo** · Apr 7, 2005 06:42

The doctype declaration only matters when it comes to validation. The thing that controls whether or not you can use XML features is the media type (a.k.a. content type or MIME type), which has to be sent as an HTTP header. You cannot set it with a <meta http-equiv="..."> element.

There are very few sites that need XHTML today. Look at this ongoing discussion for more info: Why XHTML?

**jag5311** · Apr 7, 2005 06:53

Bam, that was the link Tommy. Thanks

**jag5311** · Apr 7, 2005 06:55

This is typically what I use, so am I good?

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

I guess I don't have a MIME type.

**spinball** · Apr 7, 2005 07:16

Why wouldn't you hold yourself up to the highest standards? I prefer to code and validate to the strictest standards available. Using a HTML DTD will allow you to be sloppy, even if unintentional.

**BluDragon** · Apr 7, 2005 07:29

Originally Posted by jag5311

This is typically what I use, so am I good?

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

I guess I don't have a MIME type.

Yeah that should like somewhat like this (from my site):

Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 STRICT//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html lang="en" xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

It is always good to include the language your page is in to make sure it is rendered correctly.

As for the mime type, you can do this:

Code:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

Joe

**Viflux** · Apr 7, 2005 07:37

Originally Posted by BluDragon

As for the mime type, you can do this:

Code:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

The thing that controls whether or not you can use XML features is the media type (a.k.a. content type or MIME type), which has to be sent as an HTTP header. You cannot set it with a <meta http-equiv="..."> element.

.

**vgarcia** · Apr 7, 2005 08:02

Originally Posted by spinball

Why wouldn't you hold yourself up to the highest standards? I prefer to code and validate to the strictest standards available. Using a HTML DTD will allow you to be sloppy, even if unintentional.

No, not paying attention will make you sloppy. The DOCTYPE has little to do with how clean your code is. I've seen some very nice HTML 4.01 and some very nasty XHTML.

**AutisticCuckoo** · Apr 7, 2005 08:18

Originally Posted by jag5311

This is typically what I use, so am I good?

I would strongly urge you to switch over to using a Strict DTD. Whether you use HTML 4.01 Strict or XHTML 1.0 Strict is not as important (although there are quite a few things you should be aware of if you're using a XHTML doctype).

Originally Posted by jag5311

I guess I don't have a MIME type.

This is sent by your web server and typically defaults to text/html. XHTML 1.0 may be served as text/html under certain circumstances (the infamous Appendix C), but it should be served as application/xhtml+xml. If it isn't, it's not treated as XHTML, but as HTML with syntax errors.

The only way you can affect the MIME type (apart from changing the web server settings) is via a server-side scripting language. For instance, in PHP you can do this:

PHP Code:


header('Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8');

**jag5311** · Apr 7, 2005 09:00

so are you saying uses this

Code:

 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

**AutisticCuckoo** · Apr 7, 2005 09:24

You should use an absolute URI for the DTD:

HTML Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

**fish** · Apr 7, 2005 13:59

It's also very important for the rendering of your page. All xhtml doctypes put the browsers in "standards mode" (good). I think html 4.01 strict also does that but not html 4.01 transitional. So if you can live up to the strict part I you might as well use the html doctype (4.01 strict), if you prefer the syntax.

**zcorpan** · Apr 7, 2005 14:17

These trigger Almost Standards Mode in Gecko:

Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

These trigger Full Standards Mode in Gecko:

Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">

This one will trigger Quirks mode:

Code:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

If you serve your XHTML with an XML MIME type there is no DOCTYPE switching at all. All XML files are rendered in Full Standards Mode regardless of the DOCTYPE (if any).

**Jack Matier** · Apr 7, 2005 14:27

Okay, I keep on seeing XHTML 1.0 Strict, Transitional etc..

Is XHTML 1.1 in beta or something and I haven't realized this? Because as far as i know there is only XHTML 1.1 doctype.

I guess I use XHTML because I think it can fall back on HTML when it wants to, but it can't do the same the other way around? I should really research this before statin eh?

**zcorpan** · Apr 7, 2005 14:34

If you use XHTML 1.1 you MUST serve it as XML.

**MstrBob** · Apr 7, 2005 17:23

Originally Posted by Jack Matier

Okay, I keep on seeing XHTML 1.0 Strict, Transitional etc..

Is XHTML 1.1 in beta or something and I haven't realized this? Because as far as i know there is only XHTML 1.1 doctype.

I guess I use XHTML because I think it can fall back on HTML when it wants to, but it can't do the same the other way around? I should really research this before statin eh?

XHTML 1.1 is XHTML, only modularized. It is similar to Strict in it's syntax, but the biggest difference is that the DTD is broken up into different modules. It is in a way, a step towards XHTML 2. Modularized DTD and it Should Not have a text/html MIME-type. It Should have an application/xhtml+xml MIME type, or may have an application/xml or text/xml MIME type. See:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

**Jack Matier** · Apr 7, 2005 20:53

thanks guys.. I'll do that next chance I get.

**AutisticCuckoo** · Apr 7, 2005 22:27

Originally Posted by Jack Matier

Is XHTML 1.1 in beta or something and I haven't realized this? Because as far as i know there is only XHTML 1.1 doctype.

Just as XHTML 1.0 is a reformulation of HTML as an application of XML, XHTML 1.1 is a reformulation of XHTML 1.0 Strict using Modularization of XHTML. Clear, huh?

Transitional doctypes were meant to be used on old-skool documents during a transitional period, to make it possible to validate them as HTML4. The transitional period was supposed to last until you had removed all the presentational stuff from the HTML and put it into the CSS where it belongs, i.e. until you could validate the page with a Strict DTD.

Some think that Transitional means that it's OK to use them even for new documents until some unspecified event occurs, but I personally believe that is wrong.

W3C strongly recommends Strict DTDs for new documents. Why they decided to incorporate a Transitional DTD and a Frameset DTD with XHTML 1.0 is beyond me. They realised their mistake, though, so for XHTML 1.1 there is only one DTD, and it's strict.

**Jack Matier** · Apr 7, 2005 23:14

reads all that a few times

So, basically they made XHTML 1.0 so you can do things like Strict and Transitional still and not develop what? webmaster cubicle shock? then they moved to XHTML 1.1 which has a modularized DTD so they can later move to XHTML 2.0.

YAY!! I think I got it

**Kravvitz** · Apr 7, 2005 23:39

They made XHTML 1.0 to make a standard for XML compliant HTML.

**AutisticCuckoo** · Apr 7, 2005 23:56

Originally Posted by Kravvitz

They made XHTML 1.0 to make a standard for XML compliant HTML.

I think 'HTML-compliant XML' would be more correct, actually.

The whole point of XHTML is that it is XML, so that you can use a lightweight XML parser instead of a complex SGML parser. And other XML tools, of course.

By using the same element types and attributes as in HTML, it allows user agents to understand the semantics without a lot of change.

XHTML is not HTML that looks like XML; it's XML that looks like HTML. A lot of people don't seem to realise that, or to grasp the significance of the difference between those two statements. (And that's why there are so many badly written pages with an XHTML doctype declaration in them.)

**Jack Matier** · Apr 8, 2005 01:13

(And that's why there are so many badly written pages with an XHTML doctype declaration in them.)

Well, okay. I dont' want to fall into that pitiful trap (which I seem to be already).. Now, what is a bad example, and what is a good example?

I'm sitting here with books I got from the library.. I'll look at them tomorrow. Maybe it'll be my XML day of fun.

**mmj** · Apr 8, 2005 01:29

Originally Posted by spinball

Why wouldn't you hold yourself up to the highest standards? I prefer to code and validate to the strictest standards available. Using a HTML DTD will allow you to be sloppy, even if unintentional.

That is false and misleading.

To produce a valid HTML file is very hard, for non-trivial documents. That is, it is hard to produce a large, complex valid HTML document.

Apart from being based on SGML, which is much more complex than XML, HTML is basically the same as XHTML 1.0. It has virtually the same elements, entities and attributes. Producing a valid HTML document from scratch will be exactly as complex as producing a valid XHTML document from scratch, providing it is well-formed.

Most documents which claim to be HTML 4.01 valid (or even HTML 3.2 valid) are not.

Most documents which claim to be XHTML 1.0 valid are not.

There is a common misconception that HTML allows for sloppy code whereas XHTML does not. I believe this misconception was formed because people are less likely to validate an HTML document than they are an XHTML document. People believe, for some reason, that it is "ok" to code in HTML that is invalid. HTML does NOT allow sloppy code. Only "tag soup", which is not HTML and not XHTML, allows for sloppy code.

**sassou** · Apr 8, 2005 01:39

Valid HTML 4 here ! what is the difference really ? any advantages of XHTML ?
I use HTML4 & CSS for my pages would it be better to use XHTML/CSS ?

**Kravvitz** · Apr 8, 2005 02:16

Convincing people to go to the trouble of validating their (X)HTML documents is difficult.

How is SGML more complicated than XML, other than the case insensitivity and the optional end tags of SGML?

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

XHTML is not HTML that looks like XML; it's XML that looks like HTML. A lot of people don't seem to realise that, or to grasp the significance of the difference between those two statements.

The difference isn't very clear to me, would you care to explain or give us a link to an explanation?

User Tag List

Thread: Use XHTML or HTML 4.01 Doctype?

Thread Tools

Display

Use XHTML or HTML 4.01 Doctype?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions