SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

View Poll Results: What DTD do you use?

Voters
182. You may not vote on this poll
  • HTML (no DTD)

    6 3.30%
  • HTML 4.01 Strict

    38 20.88%
  • HTML 4.01 Transitional (this includes all subtypes)

    12 6.59%
  • XHTML 1.0 Strict

    80 43.96%
  • XHTML 1.0 Transitional

    46 25.27%
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 183
  1. #101
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The W3 did not create the internet, or html. Tim Berners Lee created the world wide web and html, then several years later founded the W3.
    And my point was it's all the same.
    It cannot be argued that html standards are necessary when so much of the internet doesn't follow them. At the end of the day they're optional and there's no advantage or disadvantage to using them. It's a personal preference of the developer and that's about it.
    If the standard is optional, I would like to see you code a web page without it. As I said before, HTML browsers are required to make the best of invalid pages, ie, markup with errors. But you are then relying on all browsers to handle your errors the same way and you have lost control of your page. I suggest learning how to make correctly marked up pages because this won't work in the near future. Your statement is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

  2. #102
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Tranquility View Post
    ...but it is obvious that moving to real XHTML doesn't seem to be possible today!
    It's entirely possible using any browser but IE. You mean is it practical.

    Technically, you can trick IE into working with xhtml.

  3. #103
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I will say that if I were to do website maintenance on say Google I'd have an aneurism probably followed by a massive coronary.
    Google's personal page validates.
    I believe that if someone is not willing to learn the standards of their chosen profession - whether they use them or not - are arrogant and lazy.
    Don't forget childish and stupid.
    I doubt anyone's actually learnt all the standards of web development given that there's many thousands of pages of them.
    You've never looked at them, have you. You aren't even in the same universe with that statement.
    I voted XHTML 1.0 strict. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if IE doesn't truly parse it as XML as long as it renders, and properly done it will render just fine still and when served with XML content type, will work fine in browsers that support XHTML fully.
    Do you serve any of your pages as 'xml+xhtml'?

  4. #104
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NickPresta View Post
    Although it may be obvious, I would just like to point out that HTML is one of the only languages that is still parsed when there are errors.

    Perhaps this is the fault of the browser (Why provide a quirks mode? Why try to parse invalid code? Why not simply return the error and force someone to fix it?) but in any other language if you provide invalid code, the execution stops and an error is returned.
    That is by design. The principle has always been, 'be lenient with what you accept' for HTML. This was partly to allow for HTML to develop (don't throw an error for unknown elements or attributes), partly to allow people who aren't tech nerds to publish on the web.

    If HTML had used XHTML's draconian error handling, I think the web would have been far less successful. The quality of whatever content there'd be would have been better, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by NickPresta View Post
    That is the only positive reason I would suggest that people move to real XHTML - your code has to be valid.
    No, it doesn't. I only has to be well-formed. Browsers don't use validating XML parsers. You can write <i><p>blah</p></i> and the browser will have to try to make sense of it. It's well-formed, but it's not valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
    Technically, you can trick IE into working with xhtml.
    Not really. You can make it interpret it as HTML by serving it as text/html. You can make it interpret it as XML by serving it as application/xml (or text/xml). But it still doesn't understand XHTML.

    Another workaround is to serve it as application/xml and then attach an XSLT identity transform to convert it back to HTML, client-side. This allows you to use CDATA sections and use self-closing tags even for element types that aren't declared as EMPTY in the DTD, but you won't be able to mix in elements from other XML namespaces. (So there's still no point, really.)
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  5. #105
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Nadia P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    3,564
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tommy,
    I just wanted to say that your knowledge about this stuff is truly amazing !! and thank you for taking the time to share it with the rest of us

    Nadia

  6. #106
    The Mind's I ® silver trophy Dark Tranquility's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    KSA - UAE
    Posts
    9,457
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    That is by design. The principle has always been, 'be lenient with what you accept' for HTML. This was partly to allow for HTML to develop (don't throw an error for unknown elements or attributes), partly to allow people who aren't tech nerds to publish on the web.

    If HTML had used XHTML's draconian error handling, I think the web would have been far less successful. The quality of whatever content there'd be would have been better, though.


    No, it doesn't. I only has to be well-formed. Browsers don't use validating XML parsers. You can write <i><p>blah</p></i> and the browser will have to try to make sense of it. It's well-formed, but it's not valid.


    Not really. You can make it interpret it as HTML by serving it as text/html. You can make it interpret it as XML by serving it as application/xml (or text/xml). But it still doesn't understand XHTML.

    Another workaround is to serve it as application/xml and then attach an XSLT identity transform to convert it back to HTML, client-side. This allows you to use CDATA sections and use self-closing tags even for element types that aren't declared as EMPTY in the DTD, but you won't be able to mix in elements from other XML namespaces. (So there's still no point, really.)

  7. #107
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks, Nadia!

    I don't mind if people want to use XHTML markup, but I'd like them to know what they are doing. If they think it's just a 'new' or 'cool' version of HTML, this practice can be 'harmful' as Ian Hickson once said. It will lead to purported XHTML documents that will break when served as XHTML. My bet is that there are millions of them out there already.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  8. #108
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Nadia P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    3,564
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    My bet is that there are millions of them out there already.
    Couldn't agree more

    Nadia

  9. #109
    I meant that to happen silver trophybronze trophy Raffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tanzania
    Posts
    4,662
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    HTML Code:
    <script type="text/javascript" src="foo.js"/>
    Perfectly valid XHTML, they way it should be written in real XHTML (except for the MIME type).
    What's wrong with the MIME type? I've seen text/x-javascript in XUL - is that what it's supposed to be? Firefox doesn't understand that.

  10. #110
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not sure if text/javascript has been registered yet. I think application/javascript has been, though, but IE doesn't support it of course.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  11. #111
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    You seemed to propose that the HTML 'standard' should be disregarded. I may have misunderstood you, though.
    I'm saying they might as well be ignored. There's no benefit and the majority of the internet doesn't abide by them.

    Of course there are often more than one way to accomplish a given complex task, but if you comply with a standard, the details will be understood by all parties regardless of the overall solution.
    But different interpretation / implementation / rendering defeats the whole point of a standard.

    Probably not until web designers and developers stop being young and immature.
    Again we're calling people who don't believe html standards are critical names. Lovely.

    The standards exist. It's the people who choose not to follow them, because they are inexperienced and do not grasp the advantages of everyone playing by the same rule book.
    There is no "rule book", there's "books". There's a half a dozen browsers in use that interpreted and implemented the W3's recommendations in different ways. Whether it's slight or major differences is irrelevant you still lose consistency, the whole point of standards, before you even open your text editor.

    What does experience have to do with it? I'd hardly call Google's, MySpace's or YouTube's developers inexperienced.

    No, it's not semantic either. Unless you indend the paragraph to be part of the heading, which doesn't fall within the normal definition of heading (or paragraph).
    The heading tag being unclosed cannot change the meaning of a paragraph. It might affect the rendering of it but the meanings remain the same. Therefore it's semantic, but invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
    If the standard is optional, I would like to see you code a web page without it.
    Check out the overwhelming majority of the internet, you'll see billions of pages that don't validate and do display correctly, often across multiple browsers.

    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
    Don't forget childish and stupid.
    Right. So far I think we've got it down to anyone who doesn't subscribe to the belief that there's some point to producing standards-compliant html, despite overwhelming evidence there's no advantage or disadvantage either way, is:
    - childish
    - stupid
    - unprofessional
    - young
    - immature
    - inexperienced

    Great effort guys. Nothing says "take me and my arguments seriously" like a little bigotry and elitism.

    You've never looked at them, have you.
    Of course not. I've read parts of the html and xhtml specs and parts of the css specs, but I don't personally have a spare year or three to familiarise myself with all of the W3's documentation, recommendations, proposals, definitions and whatnot (over a million pages). The subset relevant to html standards (ignoring all the supplementing/complimenting languages with defined standards) probably number in the 5 digits.

    I do however have close to a decades experience developing standards-compliant websites. Even though I produce compliant code it's second nature and adds nothing to a project. If I didn't do it automatically I wouldn't bother with it at all, given it's lack of adoption and progression.

    The html language hasn't changed in years, the current 'standard' isn't adopted in the most popular set of browsers and the next version'll be years before it's even completed, let alone adopted.

    It's difficult to have much faith in html standards when it's a stagnant language, browsers interpret it differently and there's neither an advantage nor disadvantage for abiding by the standards.
    Last edited by stillinbeta; Apr 3, 2007 at 10:59.

  12. #112
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi. I'm a noob. I got started 4 mnths ago with Ian's book as well.

    I just read this entire thread.

    My head hurts.

    I guess everything I am doing is xhtml served as html. And it seems to work well enough, so I'm gonna just go ahead and keep doing it. I don't want to have to learn 2 different ways of doing the same thing. At least not right now.

    Good thread btw.

  13. #113
    I meant that to happen silver trophybronze trophy Raffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tanzania
    Posts
    4,662
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In that case, why don't you just learn HTML 4.01 and serve it as text/html, as normal? Then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

    It is a good thread, but it's one of those that'll go on forever, a bit like the "tables vs. semantic markup" threads.

  14. #114
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tyssen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD
    Posts
    4,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stillinbeta View Post
    I'm saying they might as well be ignored. There's no benefit and the majority of the internet doesn't abide by them.
    Pick any industry or product, go back a certain amount of time, and you'll find the 'majority' of whatever it is you've chosen wasn't produced to a standard.
    But as time passes, things progress and a lot of was once not standardised is today.

    The Internet may be nearly 20 years old but that's still young in the terms of the history of new and emerging industries.

    Just because the current status quo is that most sites don't follow standards isn't a valid argument for why not to use them, imo. We should be looking to the future, not the past.

  15. #115
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But there's nothing to suggest html is the future. The specs and browser support are rarely updated.

    The focus has long since shifted from html to supplementary technologies like css and javascript, and independent technologies.

    Adobe and Microsoft are moving in directions that have less and less emphasis on html, Opera's focus is getting their existing technologies onto new platforms and Mozilla is focusing on projects that expand their feature set or go in whole new directions.

    With all the major players showing little or no interest in the evolution of html, the W3 dragging their feet on xhtml 2.0 and the 8 years of stagnation on the "current" form of html, why would it be the future?

  16. #116
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You want the simple answer? Because getting everybody on the same page is much easier said than done, especially when tens of thousands of people are involved. Factor in the reality that these companies are driven by the need to make a profit, and that these companies are often publicly held (meaning the shareholders are going to care far more about their ROIs than a quality product) and you'll have companies dragging their feet on the issues that really matter most to us.

  17. #117
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Check out the overwhelming majority of the internet, you'll see billions of pages that don't validate and do display correctly, often across multiple browsers.
    Have you bothered to read any of the posts about this?
    Great effort guys. Nothing says "take me and my arguments seriously" like a little bigotry and elitism.
    If you mean 'elite' as in we can do it and you can't then I'll take it.
    I've read parts of the html and xhtml specs and parts of the css specs, but I don't personally have a spare year or three to familiarise myself with all of the W3's documentation
    Well that answers all our questions.
    I do however have close to a decades experience developing standards-compliant websites.
    But you've never read the spec?!!! It is NOT thousands upon thousands of pages.

  18. #118
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
    Have you bothered to read any of the posts about this?
    Posts about what? Either validation is necessary in which case most of the internet "must not work" or it's unnecessary. Given that most of the internet does work it's obviously unnecessary.

    If you mean 'elite' as in we can do it and you can't then I'll take it.
    OK, you're elite at the most basic of development skills. The online equivelent of "flipping burgers" even. Do I want fries with that? Sure.

    Well that answers all our questions.But you've never read the spec?!!! It is NOT thousands upon thousands of pages.
    You must have missed the part where I explicitly said the w3's documentation, not just the html spec. Html is just one small component of a developer's skillset. It's definitely only one tiny, tiny component of mine. When you factor in necessary accompanying languages, and the various versions of each it quickly adds up. All the various versions of html, css, javascript, svg, mathml etc etc are relevant to the web development industry (although the ship kind of sailed on svg).

    That's a massive amount of reading material for absolutely no benefit. It won't make you better paid, it won't get you better jobs, it won't save you time or your clients money, and it's certainly not the best way to aquire additional skills.

  19. #119
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Please keep it civil guys. I don't want to see the moderators coming in with their baseball bats. And baseball season just started too.

  20. #120
    Level 8 Chinese guy Archbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in this vast universe
    Posts
    3,741
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't care much for web standards. I'll use HTML 4.01 Transitional if I need to abide by standards for some strange reason. Calling someone "unprofessional" because they don't abide by standards in BS, because honestly, users don't care about standards and we code to please users.

  21. #121
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's a massive amount of reading material for absolutely no benefit. It won't make you better paid, it won't get you better jobs, it won't save you time or your clients money, and it's certainly not the best way to aquire additional skills.
    Again you are showing us something. You don't read the spec and you think there is no benefit to learning it. Now it's really time for you to move on.

  22. #122
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't care much for web standards. I'll use HTML 4.01 Transitional if I need to abide by standards for some strange reason.
    Ok. So let's say you don't need to abide by standards or HTML 4.01 Transitional "for some strange reason". Prithy tell us what and how you mark up your pages. How do you get browsers to display your pages without standard markup/HTML of any kind whatsoever.

  23. #123
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
    Again you are showing us something. You don't read the spec and you think there is no benefit to learning it. Now it's really time for you to move on.
    I have moved on. Once upon a time I was a zealous young man just like you, and I thought that stuff like validation mattered. I'd rigorously check every page and fix every error and warning, until eventually I could code with a near-100&#37; chance of being valid without even trying.

    The turning point will come in a few years when you sit back and realise that html isn't improving, support for it isn't improving, and nobody's actually doing anything new with it. Html really just doesn't matter.

    It doesn't matter if stuff validates or not, it doesn't even particularly matter if pages are semantically structured or not. Html is essentially dead, the only question left is whether it'll be Adobe or Microsoft who supercede it.

  24. #124
    SitePoint Addict drjones013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's quite possible to get a browser-specific page (especially if its IE which covers the majority of browsers) to display consistently if it's one person working on a website; I think that if it's an individual coding a site and the client doesn't care then we should be able to respect that stance, to a point. Even the W3C don't call the standards requirements, just recommendations.

    The issue that I find with non-standards is the time and effort it takes to communicate the personalized html structure to others when the project is taken under maintenance, unless the person who wrote the markup plans to be responsible for it indefinitely. Standards give us the ability to make sure that large groups of people all use a consistent method while writing their markup and imply a degree of conformance which I don't believe non-standard writers can have (unless they've agreed upon their markup in the beginning ahead of time and don't deviate from it; this creates other types of maintenance issues).

    I'd like to point out that this forum was not designed to convert designers to standards; I'm simply curious to find out why everyone conforms/doesn't conform to standards and what DTD's they use, if any.

  25. #125
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would be really surprised if the majority of people use non-standard markup, as opposed to incorrect but 'standard' markup.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •