Converting Web Sites to XHTML+CSS

[jitu78]

Many Web designers and developers have been building Web pages for years. Just one person can create so many sites with so many pages that the thought of trying to convert all of them to anything is completely overwhelming. But if you've been building pages with an editor or by hand, you probably have pages that are not valid XHTML, and use old HTML styles like the font tag instead of Cascading Style Sheets.

There are valid reasons for leaving your site in an older state than XHTML+CSS, but make sure that you've decided to do that. Don't just leave your site old because you can't be bothered to look at it. And, no, I won't accept that your editor does it that way as an excuse.

Current Status
XHTML+CSS is the latest iteration of Web design. It allows you to place your content into your documents separate from how that content should look. XHTML 1.0 is a backwards compatible version of HTML 4.0 converted into XML. This means that it is more flexible and ready to work with databases, dynamic content, and future developments in the field. XHTML is easy to learn, especially for designers who already know HTML. And Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) give you even more flexibility in designing the look of pages. CSS is also easy to learn. XHTML and CSS combined make up XHTML+CSS.

- Jits
(ADVISOR EDIT: please keep links to your signature, thanks)

[AutisticCuckoo]

XHTML+CSS is the latest iteration of Web design. It allows you to place your content into your documents separate from how that content should look.

That is equally true for HTML+CSS. XHTML does not add anything in that regard.

XHTML 1.0 is a backwards compatible version of HTML 4.0 converted into XML.

No, it's not. XHTML 1.0 is an XML application that has the same element types and attributes as HTML 4.01.

It is not a 'version of HTML' that looks like XML.

This means that it is more flexible and ready to work with databases, dynamic content, and future developments in the field.

Pardon?
What does XHTML have to do with databases? XHTML doesn't provide any means for 'dynamic content'.

XHTML is easy to learn, especially for designers who already know HTML.

Au contraire. Designers who know HTML will most likely find it very difficult to learn real XHTML, because of the superficial similarities yet profound differences. The result is usually pretend-XHTML documents that will fail miserably when served as XML.

CSS is also easy to learn.

I know quite a few people who would disagree vehemently with that statement.

[Buddy Bradley]

Carbonated water is a backwards-compatible version of water converted into bubbly water. This means it is better for you and can cure cancer or any other disease as yet undiscovered by medical science.

[xhtmlcoder]

Yeah, I am gonna write me some Carbonate Markup Language. Déjà Vue with this bloke today.

[DaveWoods]

Does anybody else feel that this is a case of somebody thinking that they're an expert trying to preach to people that know a little bit about a subject?

The "more flexible and ready to work with databases" comment had me in stiches.... I'd really like to know why he thinks that XHTML is anymore ready to work with databases than HTML?

My guess is that these threads are being posted on a number of web related industry sites in the hope that google will follow the signature or that people would follow the link and it would generate business.

If the later is correct then you probably want to lose the xml declaration before the doctype on the site and make sure that the site is 100% valid to XHTML Strict before preaching to people about how "easy" it is to make an XHTML website

[Buddy Bradley]

You might be right...

Edit: Hmm, it seems to actually be the text of an About.com article.

[vgarcia]

There's a wide gulf of difference between "clean code" and "using XHTML". One is quite possible without the other, yet both get tangled up in each other way too often.

[Buddy Bradley]

If the later is correct then you probably want to lose the xml declaration before the doctype on the site and make sure that the site is 100% valid to XHTML Strict before preaching to people about how "easy" it is to make an XHTML website

Or even actually use CSS on the keyword-spamming tables-for-layout site.

I say ban - it's spam and stolen content to boot (as is the image format thread as well).

[DaveWoods]

I had noticed the lack of CSS but there's too many problems with that site to mention.... no alt tags on images, javascript "onclick" navigation (which does use css so was probably stolen from somewhere), use of tables for layouts, any use of styles is written inline, no external stylesheet, xhtml isn't used as img tags etc aren't closed, javascript used to display images...... I could go on but copying and pasting an article and passing it off as your own (however incorrect it is) onto a site which obviously has a number of experts in the industry and then having a link to a site (which is presumably yours) that doesn't meet any of the standards outlined in the article doesn't create a very good impression.

[Dan Schulz]

csswiz, they're alt attributes, not tags

I also agree this muck (the "article") needs to be removed.

[DaveWoods]

csswiz, they're alt attributes, not tags

I also agree this muck (the "article") needs to be removed.

Sorry, I've been using structured HTML and seperating structure from presentation for a few years now but that's still a bad habit that I'm trying to kick

[Dan Schulz]

That's ok. You'd be surprised at the types of (Web-related) habits I still try to kick...

[RetroNetro]

Carbonated water is a backwards-compatible version of water converted into bubbly water. This means it is better for you and can cure cancer or any other disease as yet undiscovered by medical science.

hahahahahahahaha