SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 59
  1. #26
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,215
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by devin11 View Post
    From seo perspective learn Xhtml.
    what!!?? could you explain the reasons for this please?
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  2. #27
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,784
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    what!!?? could you explain the reasons for this please?

    There is no possible reason apart from a complete misunderstanding on what HTML and XHTML are.

    If you are someone who prefers consistency then learning XHTML first (including the extra rules in Appendix C that make the resultant code compatible with HTML) and then changing the doctype back to HTML and deleting the now unneeded slashes in the self closing tags will give you more consistent HTML because it means that the HTML tags that can optionally be left out but which are required in XHTML will always be there making your code easier to read. Of course you could always just code your HTML that way in the first place and get the benefits of consistent coding without having to pretend it is XHTML first.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  3. #28
    Function Curry'er JimmyP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brighton, UK
    Posts
    2,006
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by devin11 View Post
    xhtml and css are core codes to optimize your website. Xhtml is advanced subject of html.From seo perspective learn Xhtml.
    I'm not being rude here but it seems that every thread we have a "search marketing" professional come in a make a totally inaccurate comment!

    As stated in numerous comments above no one of these two languages is more "advanced" than the other plus CSS/XHTML are both absolute necessities - I don't quite understand what you mean by "core codes to optimize your website"!

    AFAIK Search engines don't care which one you use (HTML/XHTML) as long as it's coded semantically and complies to the corresponding DTD.
    Last edited by JimmyP; Aug 25, 2008 at 13:24.
    James Padolsey
    末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末
    Awesome JavaScript Zoomer (demo here)
    'Ajaxy' - Ajax integration solution (demo here)

  4. #29
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    </moderator-mode>

    Quote Originally Posted by devin11 View Post
    xhtml and css are core codes to optimize your website. Xhtml is advanced subject of html.From seo perspective learn Xhtml.
    If that's the advice you offer your clients with your 'search marketing solutions' I suggest you don't give up your day job. In fact, you might want to make sure you have a good lawyer, because one of these days you're likely to be sued for giving out incompetent advice!

    'Xhtml is advanced subject of html.' Right. And the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Everybody knows that.

    'From seo perspective learn Xhtml.' Please expound on this. I'm agog to learn why.

    Or was your post perchance just a lame attempt to get some exposure for your signature and maybe some valuable back-links?

    Do you really expect it to be good advertising to be associated with remarks like these, that clearly show that you know nothing about the subject (and, perhaps more importantly, about SEO)?

    <moderator-mode>
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  5. #30
    SitePoint Enthusiast webburu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In my opinion you can learn HTML and then it doesn't take time to move to XHTML. It's also quite easier for you to take a look at some old HTML code you may encounter later. Good luck!

  6. #31
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    No, HTML is an application of SGML.
    Right, in theory. In practice, only validators treat it as such (or at least I don't know any other HTML implementations that do, including non-browser implementations).

    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    They have the same semantics, since XHTML1 is merely a reformulation of HTML4 as an application of XML,
    Yes, that's what I mean when I say that they share the same abstract language. There are major and minor and obvious and subtle differences in parsing, CSS, scripting, expressiveness, and so forth.

    There are differences between spoken English and written English too, yet I'd say they share the same abstract language. Makes sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    XHTML allows you to use elements from other namespaces, for instance, which HTML does not. Although these aren't part of XHTML as such, I think it shows that there's more to this than just serialisation.
    I'd argue that's because the underlying serialization is more expressive, not because XHTML is a different language.

    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    You can't parse a generic XHTML document and re-serialise it as HTML without loss.
    Can you parse generic spoken English and write it down again without loss?

    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    And the way the two markup languages are parsed and the way errors are handled are also quite different, although the error handling isn't formally specified in HTML4. Again, there's more than just a syntactic issue of serialisation.
    We use different senses to parse spoken English and written English (and error handling is quite different, although that isn't formally specified for either).

    Simon Pieters

  7. #32
    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 zcorpan View Post
    Right, in theory. In practice, only validator treat it as such (or at least I don't know any other HTML implementations that do, including non-browser implementations).
    The fact that browsers have buggy parsers doesn't change the fact that HTML is an application of SGML. That's like saying that 'definately' is the correct spelling in English just because lots of people mis-spell it like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    There are differences between spoken English and written English too, yet I'd say they share the same abstract language. Makes sense?
    Not really. Written English is a gross simplification of spoken English. They are not semantically equivalent.

    The rest of your post is a strawman argument, I'm afraid, since it's based on the assertion that the allegory about the English language is comparable.

    You think XHTML is a sort of HTML, I think it's not. Let's just agree do disagree, all right? HTML5 won't be an application of SGML anyway, so the point will eventually be moot.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  8. #33
    SitePoint Zealot tjyobazee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    go html

  9. #34
    SitePoint Guru cyjetsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    814
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I thought xhtml was just well formed html without deprecated html elements.

  10. #35
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,215
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cyjetsu View Post
    I thought xhtml was just well formed html without deprecated html elements.
    it isn't, they are separate (although similar) languages

    have you read all of this thread?
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  11. #36
    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 cyjetsu View Post
    I thought xhtml was just well formed html without deprecated html elements.
    No, XHTML is well-formed XML. The only likeness to HTML is that they share the same set of element types and attributes (i.e., semantics).

    XHTML 1.0 Transitional (and Frameset) has exactly the same deprecated elements as HTML 4.01 Transitional (and Frameset).

    XHTML 1.0 Strict and HTML 4.01 Strict do not have these deprecated elements.

    It has nothing to do with XHTML vs HTML, and everything to do with Strict vs Transitional/Framset.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  12. #37
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,784
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    You should start with a strict doctype - the others should only be used where you have existing pages that use deprecated elements and do not have time to ix them right now.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  13. #38
    SitePoint Zealot Rexibit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I personally learned in HTML and used that for several years. However, I like using XHTML now just because you are building for the future. The future is going to be XHTML due to it being mostly XML based. Your code will take little effort to change for other applications.
    Rexibit Web Services
    Don't just build it - CSS it

  14. #39
    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 Rexibit View Post
    However, I like using XHTML now just because you are building for the future. The future is going to be XHTML due to it being mostly XML based.
    There is nothing that indicates that this will happen. On the contrary, the XHTML myth has been debunked and the future looks like it will be HTML5 <shudder/>.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  15. #40
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,784
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    the future looks like it will be HTML5 <shudder/>.
    Let's hope that if it does go that way that they fix HTML5 properly first and actually drop all the currently deprecated stuff completely since it definitely isn't needed. The proposals for new tags needs to be really closely examined before any get approved since few of them are necessary either.

    Not that I expect that to happen.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  16. #41
    SitePoint Guru cyjetsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    814
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I heard xhtml was to be the new way but that was a long time ago. I must research again, prehaps this html 5 stuff.... is it really that bad?

  17. #42
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Everyone (more or less) thought XHTML was the way forward, a few years ago. Then we discovered that it wasn't all it was hyped up to be.

    Whether HTML5 is bad depends on whom you ask. It doesn't look very innovative – there are few new element types – and it seems to maintain some old-school stuff that some of us feel have no reason for being anymore. It even incorporates old non-standard stuff (like embed) instead of encouraging existing replacements that are much better (object). What's worse, in my opinion, is that it redefines perfectly good semantics from HTML4 (e.g., making the P element a generic block-level container, just like a DIV, rather than a paragraph of text).
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  18. #43
    SitePoint Zealot Rexibit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    There is nothing that indicates that this will happen. On the contrary, the XHTML myth has been debunked and the future looks like it will be HTML5 <shudder/>.
    Do what? I don't understand how HTML5 would be the answer. More companies are moving from just a plain old website to wanting them to be integrated with mobile browsers, PDA's etc. All of those generally rely on some form of XML to be seen. The most logical and cost saving solution would be to design your main website to be more catered to both so that less work would be involved in converting. (Yes, I know a database would solve most of these issues too.)
    Rexibit Web Services
    Don't just build it - CSS it

  19. #44
    SitePoint Guru cyjetsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    814
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That is why I heard xhtml was better, for xml compatibility. It seems html5 is wanted for some people for backwards-compatibility. I am no expert but I would vote for xhtml, from looking online, people who prefer html5 call xhtml's semantics over-pedantic. All I want is a nice clean semantic coding standard with maximum compatibility and no stupid browser bugs, why can't they just do that? No I don't really expect you to answer that question.

  20. #45
    Pedantic Semantic blain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    528
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IMHO, i think that the best current option (which is the option I go for) is to code in HTML 4.01 strict and serve it as text/html, but, write your code in an XML way (minus trailing slashes)

    for example

    Code HTML4Strict:
    <select id="dropdown">
    <option value="opt1">option</option>
    not
    Code HTML4Strict:
    <SELECT id=dropdown>
    <OPTION value=opt1>option

    both are perfectly valid, but the first example is more well formed.
    Technology is dominated by two types of people:
    those who understand what they do not manage,
    and those who manage what they do not understand.

  21. #46
    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 Rexibit View Post
    More companies are moving from just a plain old website to wanting them to be integrated with mobile browsers, PDA's etc. All of those generally rely on some form of XML to be seen.
    They do? Are there a lot of browsers that require XML? If so, can you give a few examples?

    I find it hard to believe, since there aren't very many 'pages' on the Internet that are accessible to such a device. A very large majority of 'XHTML' documents seem to be served as text/html, which an XML-only parser mustn't attempt to parse. And since they are served as HTML, many, many of them contain well-formedness errors that go by undetected, but would cause an immediate Yellow Screen of Death or equivalent if they were to be served as an application of XML.

    The (ab)use of pretend-XHTML has killed XHTML, in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexibit View Post
    I don't understand how HTML5 would be the answer.
    The HTML5 WG is producing a parallel XHTML5 serialisation, for those few who really need it to be XML.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexibit View Post
    The most logical and cost saving solution would be to design your main website to be more catered to both so that less work would be involved in converting.
    Valid, semantic HTML 4.01 can easily be converted to valid XHTML 1.0. Batch conversion could handle tens of thousands of documents per hour.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyjetsu View Post
    I am no expert but I would vote for xhtml, from looking online, people who prefer html5 call xhtml's semantics over-pedantic.
    XHTML 1.0 has exactly the same semantics as HTML 4.01. The semantics isn't even described in the XHTML 1.0 specification; the spec just refers to the HTML 4.01 spec and says, 'it means the same thing'.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyjetsu View Post
    All I want is a nice clean semantic coding standard with maximum compatibility and no stupid browser bugs, why can't they just do that?
    HTML 4.01 Strict is the closest you will get to that today. It has by far the best cross-browser support in terms of the number of users.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  22. #47
    SitePoint Guru cyjetsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    814
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think many websites essentially need to be xml compliant right now, but I believe the mobile browser market is growing and should boom so for the future it would be good if everything was xml compliant.

    I am not even sure what my webpages are considered as regarding xhtml or html4.strict, all I know is that I use an xhtml strict dtd and validate it as such.

    I don't really get the whole standards war, why not just make the standard xml compliant, and also semantic with some backwards compatibility and introduction of new elements, I don't see why you can't create something with the best of both worlds and non of the downfalls.

  23. #48
    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 cyjetsu View Post
    I believe the mobile browser market is growing and should boom so for the future it would be good if everything was xml compliant.
    Why? It's not like mobile browsers can afford not to support HTML, since almost everything on the web is HTML (even if a part of it claims to be XHTML).

    Quote Originally Posted by cyjetsu View Post
    I am not even sure what my webpages are considered as regarding xhtml or html4.strict, all I know is that I use an xhtml strict dtd and validate it as such.
    I'm afraid that doesn't mean much, unless you also serve the documents as an application of XML (e.g., with a MIME type of application/xhtml+xml). If you serve it as text/html it is nothing but invalid HTML as far as browsers are concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyjetsu View Post
    why not just make the standard xml compliant
    Because XML isn't really suited for web pages. It's a good format for transmitting data between applications, and also for storing information. But XML's requirement for well-formedness and its draconian error handling make it poorly suited for web pages, because human beings make mistakes. And it's not too brilliant to have a system where your visitors only get to see a Yellow Screen of Death just because you mis-spelt a tag or forgot to escape an ampersand.

    For XML to work for web content, we'd need good publishing tools that would guarantee well-formed markup. Hand-coding would be a thing of the past, except for real hard-core authors. As long as most publishing tools are based on string manipulation rather than DOM nodes, XML (and real XHTML) is a no-go.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  24. #49
    SitePoint Guru cyjetsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    814
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So would you recommend I serve an xml Mime type with my xhtml-strict-dtd, or should I just use a html.4-strict dtd instead?

  25. #50
    SitePoint Guru cyjetsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    814
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    according to
    http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html

    most current browsers including ie6 dont support xhtml? so does that mean all the websites i see serving an xhtml dtd are wrong? including this very own website sitepoint which serves an xhtml dtd to ie6, so Im guessing dosn't use a mime type. im confused now.


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
  •