Should I switch to xhtml?

[Kravvitz]

True XHTML uses the application/xhtml+xml mime-type, which IE/Win does not support.

Where does the W3C say that?

[pauly]

Here; http://www.w3.org/MarkUp prolonging you follow the guidelines found here; http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines

You can probably tell my XML experience isn't all that indepth, I do have a basic understanding of the technology, but if it's true what you say, that true XHTML shouldn't work as it does in IE, then I have obviously misinterpreted the W3C and should re-learn the content available.

I am trying to learn XML further indepth, but time .... yuck, I hate not having enough time to do everything. Can you fill me in a little on the XHTML application/xml, as well as how it's supposed to integrate into the web?

To me, it seems a little pointless integrating XML with XHTML, they've already done that for us. Could you give me some examples of indepth use of XHTML, where the XML plays a large roll? Other than well formed documents (This includes ending all tags)? Like I say for, the web, I have no use for XML in desktop applications right now. I know that XML can be used by online applications too, and makes them much more compatible assuming the applications can interpret the XML correctly, but for markup? I don't follow at all.

I'm here to learn too, hope you can explain this a little clearer for me, and everyone else.

[AutisticCuckoo]

Could you provide a link to that statement? AFAIK, W3C only says that you may serve XHTML as HTML provided that you follow the compatibility guidelines in Appendix C. Since IE balks on application/xhtml+xml, it doesn't matter much what W3C says anyway. The net result is that you cannot use real XHTML for a general-audience site.

[Kravvitz]

I agree with AutisticCuckoo.

Not sure I follow these comments about '[true]' XHTML. The W3C spec clearly states 'true' XHTML caters for all browsers, even the god forsaken IE.

I searched for the word "browser" on both of those pages and found no statement that means anything like that.

[pauly]

I used it losely, that wasn't the actual quote.

.. can be interpreted by existing browsers, by following a few simple guidelines. This allows you to start using XHTML now!

What about my questions above?

[Kravvitz]

I know it isn't an actual quote. My point is that I don't see anything that says anything like what you said.

We've gone over this so many times.

Use XHTML or HTML 4.01 Doctype?
What are the purposes of XHTML?
XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01 Strict?
Why XHTML? What is the point?
<br> vs. <br />

If you don't care about XHTML, just use valid HTML 4.01, like I do.

[AutisticCuckoo]

.. can be interpreted by existing browsers, by following a few simple guidelines. This allows you to start using XHTML now!

That statement is misleading, and I suppose it's the reason why so many beginners get this wrong. It should say,

.. can be interpreted by existing browsers, by following a few simple guidelines. This allows you to start using XHTML markup now!

When your document is served as text/html it is HTML to all intents and purposes. More importantly, it is not XHTML as far as user agents are concerned. The crucial points about that are: a) that you cannot use any of the advantages that XHTML offers over HTML; and b) that you can go on using old-skool HTML-only practices and be none the wiser.

[pauly]

So, although the governing body tells everyone it's ok to use XHTML now, and that we should start to, to prepare for future transitions between the technology, you're telling me don't?

I apologise if I seem hostile, I'm merely trying to understand, the statements you make and I've read from the W3C contradict each other, I'm looking for the best solution for my clients, not how I prefer to develop.

Right now, XHTML makes sense to me, even if served up as text/html. This allows me to make smaller changes in the future, when 'true' XHTML is more widely supported. Yes, this may well be years away, but our clients are long term, and when you put all that work into a single pile, it saves us time and them money when it comes time to update these.

I realise that you're not in agreement with using text/html in an XHTML document, but given the circumstances of clients, wouldn't it be sensible to serve them like that whilst we go through this transition stage? Me leaving them in XHTML allows me to update them to either HTML or 'true' XHTML with ease in the future, without worrying about charging the client to much, because we thought ahead. A rare exception?

Thanks for the reading, I did a lot of cross-referencing over at the W3C,which after all lays down our 'rules' and standards. I find it hard to get into the frame of mind where I'm saying 'Right we'll do this in HTML Strict, but we'll charge you just a little less to convert it all in a few years, assuming you're using the same design'. Or, what if we redevelop their site in HTML a year before a huge browser revelation and 99.6% of the browser market supports 'true' XHTML? Do I then tell the client oh we'll re-do this now it'll cost you another $X.

That's not in my best interest. Yes some of the circumstances look a bit 'iffy' but I'm sure it won't be long (A few years) until we can start serving 'true' XML.

I'm not prepared to screw my clients around, it's up to me as a developer to look to the future and decide which route is best to take, and this one makes sense to me right now.

[AutisticCuckoo]

So, although the governing body tells everyone it's ok to use XHTML now, and that we should start to, to prepare for future transitions between the technology, you're telling me don't?

I'm not telling anyone what to do. All I'm saying is that I recommend that people understand the consequences of the things they do. As it is, there are lots of people who truly believe they are using XHTML and reaping all the mythical benefits from it, while in reality their sites would generate a big fat Yellow Screen of Death if served as XHTML. Or at least much of their CSS and JavaScript would cease to work.

Right now, XHTML makes sense to me, even if served up as text/html.

Personally, I don't understand how it makes sense, but it is fully acceptable to do so.

This allows me to make smaller changes in the future, when 'true' XHTML is more widely supported.

Only if you compare it with old-skool tag soup HTML. If you write HTML the way I'd recommend it, i.e. just as XHTML but without the /> syntax for a handful of element types, the difference in conversion work is negligible.

Remember, when XHTML 2.0 comes out, it most likely won't be compatible with XHTML 1.0, so you'll have to rewrite the lot anyway.

I realise that you're not in agreement with using text/html in an XHTML document

I'm not saying that it's wrong to do so, only that it is pointless and potentially 'dangerous.' Unless you know exactly what you're doing, and unless you're meticulous about validation, there is a risk that you'll create pages that will fail the day you try to serve them as real XHTML.

If you want to use XHTML syntax in HTML documents for whatever reason, it's your business. I'm just advocating that you learn all the things to look out for, that's all. That is what will save conversion work in the future, not which doctype declaration you use today.

[Kravvitz]

There are a few programs out there that can use regular expressions to change the doctype, add the xmlns attribute to <head>, and add a slash to each of the empty elements like <meta> and <link> found on the page.

[ewomack]

So when is the big XHTML revolution going to happen? I've been hearing about it for years now, and it's always "right around the corner". I try to use XHTML whenever possible, but I always wonder why since nothing seems to be happening with it. I'm beginning to feel like Gramsci in prison.

Any news?

But in the meantime, having a supersolidrockhard foundation in HTML will not hurt whatsoever. It's probably the one essential thing you need for the web these days. XHTML can come later (if it ever actually does ).

[Kravvitz]

Many people use XHTML, though many use it incorrectly.

The problem is that IE doesn't support true XHTML.

Some sites detect what mime-types a browser can handle and sets the mime-type of the document accordingly. AutisticCuckoo's site is an example of that.

[pauly]

Ok just had a kinda large discussion with Eric over on IWDN, he cleared it all up for me. Thanks for your input though