Please Clarify XHTML 1.0?

**ajaxdinesh** · May 8, 2009 01:37

Hi,

Shall i use this code for XHTML 1.0 Page? its 100% XHTML code?

Also i need one clarification

1. What is the advantage of this code?

Code HTML4Strict:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!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" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
</head>
<body>
XHTML 1.0
</body>
</html>

**Erik J** · May 8, 2009 03:40

This is the minimum you could start with. A title is mandatory and new pages should be strict, the transitional can be rendered different in rare cases also. The xml version before the doctype will throw IE into quirks mode.

There is no advantage over HTML as it is served as html/text.

HTML Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
<title>Not Named Yet</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>XHTML 1.0</p>
</body>
</html>

**AutisticCuckoo** · May 8, 2009 03:47

Your code is contradicting itself. First it states that it is an application of XML, then you state that the content type is text/html. Those two statements cannot be reconciled.

Either drop the XML declaration (first line) or the meta element. In the latter case you'll have to serve it as XML, though, which means it won't work in Internet Explorer. That can be a significant drawback... <--understatement of the year

If you don't know about these issues, you really should use XHTML at all. Use HTML 4.01 Strict, which is the latest specification that is universally supported:

Code HTML4Strict:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
    <title>Document Title</title>
  </head>
  <body>
    ...body content...
  </body>
</html>

**ajaxdinesh** · May 8, 2009 07:32

Hi AutisticCuckoo,

All are recommend to XHTML for current webstandard(web 2.0) that time we can define this doctype.

Code HTML4Strict:

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

But you said this code.

Code HTML4Strict:

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

which one is current web standard?

**Jake Arkinstall** · May 8, 2009 09:46

Whilst I use the XHTML doctype, that is simply because I like to close tags.

There is no benefit at all of using XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01. XHTML cannot be served as an actual XML document as intended because the guys at MS who are responsible for IE decided to ignore a standard. This is what we can expect from IE.

So really, it doesn't matter if you write your page in XHTML1 or HTML4, both are pretty much the same thing.

**AutisticCuckoo** · May 8, 2009 09:55

Originally Posted by ajaxdinesh

All are recommend to XHTML for current webstandard(web 2.0) that time we can define this doctype.

By whom? There are some things you can do with XHTML that you cannot do with HTML, but only if you serve it as real XHTML. And Internet Explorer doesn't support XHTML. At all. Using real XHTML will be very demanding, because the slightest error will cause an error message to display instead of the page. If you have user-generated content on your site you need to perform extensive validation before outputting it. And even if you supply all content yourself, you'd better not make any mistakes. Personally, I don't think it's worth it. (Yes, I currently use XHTML on my blog, but I've learned my lesson and will change it to HTML only if I ever find time to rewrite the software.)

Originally Posted by ajaxdinesh

which one is current web standard?

Both are 'web standards', i.e., specified as recommendations by W3C. XHTML does not replace HTML, it is only a parallel standard for those who need XML features in their web documents. The main reason would be the need to include elements from other XML namespaces, such as SVG or MathML. If you don't have any such needs, HTML is a better choice because it doesn't require user agents to stop as soon as they encounter an error.

XHTML 1.0 is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 as an application of XML. It doesn't add or remove anything; it isn't 'stricter' or more semantic or anything. It's just a way to express the same thing using XML instead of HTML.

You may want to read the XHTML vs HTML FAQ if you haven't already done so. Most of the differences and similarities are explained there.

**Jake Arkinstall** · May 8, 2009 10:55

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

If you have user-generated content on your site you need to perform extensive validation before outputting it.

Not really extensive. Many languages have XML functionality built into them, so for example in PHP you can validate if input is valid XML, identify the first error and alert the user to the error details and its line in about... 4, 5 lines of code?

Personally I prefer the restriction. If you write a program, you don't want it just to ignore errors you make; Most don't have that ability, others handle it in unpredictable ways.

**felgall** · May 8, 2009 13:25

Originally Posted by arkinstall

If you write a program, you don't want it just to ignore errors you make; Most don't have that ability, others handle it in unpredictable ways.

That's why many programmers tend to use XHTML rather than HTML even though they might serve it as HTML. For non-programmers who don;t really care about the sorts of distinctions about errors that programmers care about HTML is the better option as most of them wouldn't understand the difference between HTML and XHTML anyway.

**AutisticCuckoo** · May 9, 2009 09:18

Originally Posted by felgall

That's why many programmers tend to use XHTML rather than HTML even though they might serve it as HTML.

But that doesn't make sense! If you serve it as HTML it will be parsed as HTML, so none of the XML well-formedness requirements will apply. And there'll be no draconian error handling, as some individuals claim to find desirable.

If you really like to walk a tightrope without a safety net, use XHTML and serve it as XHTML. (And see how much you like it after a while ...

)

**felgall** · May 9, 2009 13:18

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

If you really like to walk a tightrope without a safety net, use XHTML and serve it as XHTML. (And see how much you like it after a while ...

)

Programmers are used to things not working if there is the slightest thing wrong with the code that they write and so writing valid XHTML that works correctly as XHTML is trivial for programmers. Of course if doing so were trivial for everyone then everyone would be able to write their own programs. Creating valid XHTML is like a 10 metre wide highway compared to the tightrope that programmers walk every day with other languages that are all as unforgiving as XHTML but hundreds or thousands of times more complex. XHTML even comes with the added benefit that if there is an error then it doesn't work at all so that you know for certain whether there are errors or not - something you unfortunately don't get with programming languages.

**AutisticCuckoo** · May 10, 2009 09:05

Originally Posted by felgall

Programmers are used to things not working if there is the slightest thing wrong with the code that they write and so writing valid XHTML that works correctly as XHTML is trivial for programmers.

No, it's not. I've been a programmer for 30 years – the last 19 as a professional. And I still make the occasional mistake when hand-coding a 3,000-word article in XHTML. Even with a good editor that does autoindent and syntax highlighting. Maybe I'm just really dumb?

And programmers rarely compile and deploy directly to a production server. They get the chance to find errors on their own machine, and usually on an integration test server and an acceptance test server as well, before going live. That's not common for XHTML documents.

Originally Posted by felgall

XHTML even comes with the added benefit that if there is an error then it doesn't work at all so that you know for certain whether there are errors or not - something you unfortunately don't get with programming languages.

A syntax error will be caught by the compiler or interpreter, just as an XML parser will catch well-formedness errors.

Logical errors may not be caught by a compiler, but neither will an XML parser complain about semantic errors like using tables for layout or <blockquote> to indent some text.

**Jake Arkinstall** · May 10, 2009 09:28

And that is why the server-side validation should report XML errors, just like a compiler would. That way, things aren't updated unless things are pristine - as they should be!

**felgall** · May 10, 2009 12:26

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

And I still make the occasional mistake when hand-coding a 3,000-word article in XHTML.

Which is WHY having it not display until you find and fix that mistake is a good idea.

All programmers make occasional mistales and an error in 3000 lines of XHTML would be about as common as an error in 15 lines of program code. Anything that helps let you know that the error exists so you can fix it is a PLUS.

With a program that gets compile the compil;er will refuse to compile the code if there is a syntax error. Refusing to display XHTML that contains an error is exactly the same thing.

**Jake Arkinstall** · May 10, 2009 14:15

Exactly. As I said before, it's common sense to validate xml before putting it online, and it's very easy to validate it.

But what if you made the same error in a HTML document? You may have to look through it with your eye because the error may be acceptable HTML code, just not what you meant to have.

Of course, such a thing isn't possible in XHTML, because opening and closing things is a MUST.

And that is why strictness is better, for me.

**cooper.semantics** · May 10, 2009 16:18

Using real xhtml would be downright silly in a CMS environment...
I could only imagine correcting hundreds if not thousands of errors spit out...

And not to mention serving ads

I mean look around on the web and see if you can find a handful of 100% valid websites, really...

**felgall** · May 10, 2009 19:21

Originally Posted by cooper.semantics

Using real xhtml would be downright silly in a CMS environment...
I could only imagine correcting hundreds if not thousands of errors spit out...

Perhaps for the average user but a programmer is used to applying much stricter standards in the first place and wouldn't make very many errors - and those they did make would get fixed sooner if the pages were actually served as XHTML.

Originally Posted by cooper.semantics

And not to mention serving ads

If all browsers supported XHTML then those creating ads would need to be far more careful in how they created their ads.

Originally Posted by cooper.semantics

I mean look around on the web and see if you can find a handful of 100% valid websites, really...

For web pages served as XHTML the number of valid web sites is way higher than it is for sites served as HTML. That in itself is proof of how much better XHTML is for getting your page written correctly.

**cooper.semantics** · May 10, 2009 20:46

Originally Posted by felgall

Perhaps for the average user but a programmer is used to applying much stricter standards in the first place and wouldn't make very many errors - and those they did make would get fixed sooner if the pages were actually served as XHTML.

Editors are average users and they are the ones that deal with CMS content. It sucks for the programmers that have to come in and fix all the errors which could add up in the hundreds if not thousands.

Originally Posted by felgall

If all browsers supported XHTML then those creating ads would need to be far more careful in how they created their ads.

Tell that to all the various companies that know little to none well formed markup.

Originally Posted by felgall

For web pages served as XHTML the number of valid web sites is way higher than it is for sites served as HTML. That in itself is proof of how much better XHTML is for getting your page written correctly.

True, they have to be... I agree xhtml is better, but it's just not practical.

**AutisticCuckoo** · May 10, 2009 22:43

Originally Posted by arkinstall

And that is why the server-side validation should report XML errors, just like a compiler would.

What server-side validation? All you need to publish a document on the web is a text editor and an FTP app.

And if you're going to do server-side validation, you could validate HTML just as well as XHTML.

Originally Posted by felgall

Which is WHY having it not display until you find and fix that mistake is a good idea.

Tell that to the number of irate visitors who get a YSoD before I manage to fix it. Especially if the mistake is trivial, such as forgetting a closing tag whose existence can be unambiguously implied.

Originally Posted by felgall

Anything that helps let you know that the error exists so you can fix it is a PLUS.

Yes. It's called a validator.

Originally Posted by felgall

With a program that gets compile the compil;er will refuse to compile the code if there is a syntax error. Refusing to display XHTML that contains an error is exactly the same thing.

Except that the development process is usually very different. Only a suicidal programmer would deploy untested code, and in the case of syntax errors it wouldn't even compile. Web documents, on the other hand, are often written or updated 'live'.

**ajaxdinesh** · May 11, 2009 01:55

Hi AutisticCuckoo,

If i have defined the Doctype HTML 4.01, its rendering all hand devices(Ex., Mobile)

Finally you said, its not much important XHTML. We can use HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML

shall we use HTML 4.01 to all feature sites?

Any issue in feature?

are you agree these points or not?

1. You have maintain a small website that time only we can use XHTML.
2. We can maintain a large website(e-commerce or blog or forum site) that time only we can use HTML 4.01. Because the standard not follow.

**AutisticCuckoo** · May 11, 2009 03:19

Originally Posted by ajaxdinesh

If i have defined the Doctype HTML 4.01, its rendering all hand devices(Ex., Mobile)

I don't know everything about all hand-held devices, obviously, but it would surprise me if there are any that support XHTML but not HTML. There'd only be a handful of pages they could visit, since almost all 'XHTML' pages are served as HTML.

Some, older, mobile devices may support only WAP, but that's a separate issue.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is that if you really use XHTML it won't render in any version of Internet Explorer (desktop). Of course, if you serve it as HTML it will render in IE, but then you're not using XHTML at all.

Originally Posted by ajaxdinesh

Finally you said, its not much important XHTML. We can use HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML

shall we use HTML 4.01 to all feature sites?

Unless you need it to be XML, then there is no reason to use XHTML. Especially if you serve it as HTML, because then you are, effectively, sending invalid HTML to the browsers and relying on their bugs to make it work.

Originally Posted by ajaxdinesh

1. You have maintain a small website that time only we can use XHTML.

You can use XHTML for any site you want, if you don't mind excluding Internet Explorer from it. But you'd better have some way to test documents before publishing, since the slightest mistake will stop the page from rendering.

Originally Posted by ajaxdinesh

2. We can maintain a large website(e-commerce or blog or forum site) that time only we can use HTML 4.01. Because the standard not follow.

Again, you can use XHTML for a large site, too. But I doubt that there are many large sites that are willing to exclude the majority of users who still use Internet Explorer.

**zcorpan** · May 11, 2009 04:45

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

I don't know everything about all hand-held devices, obviously, but it would surprise me if there are any that support XHTML but not HTML.

Me too -- I didn't find any during my research two years ago.

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

The most important thing, in my opinion, is that if you really use XHTML it won't render in any version of Internet Explorer (desktop or mobile).

Actually IE on mobile would, according to the results of my research, parse XHTML using the HTML parser and would thus render (although maybe not correctly).

This is pretty problematic since, if mobile browsers treat XHTML as HTML, you cannot use XHTML-only features on mobiles even if you wanted to and did everything correctly. Yay for XHTML propaganda.

Fortunately desktop browsers aren't being this silly. Well, actually, Konqueror is being this silly, IIRC.

http://simon.html5.org/articles/mobile-results

**AutisticCuckoo** · May 11, 2009 04:54

Originally Posted by zcorpan

Actually IE on mobile would, according to the results of my research, parse XHTML using the HTML parser and would thus render (although maybe not correctly).

Thanks for that, Simon! I've updated my earlier post.

Originally Posted by zcorpan

This is pretty problematic since, if mobile browsers treat XHTML as HTML, you cannot use XHTML-only features on mobiles even if you wanted to and did everything correctly.

And the prize for Understatement of the Year goes to ... *drumroll* ... Simon!

**unixcommerce** · May 11, 2009 10:48

looks right to me

**RyanReese** · May 11, 2009 13:14

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

If you don't know about these issues, you really should use XHTML at all. Use

Alright thanks for the advice..

**Jake Arkinstall** · May 11, 2009 16:09

@AutisticCuckoo I'd agree that serving XHTML as XHTML is impractical, because of the scum-of-the-browser-world called IE. I still can't believe that the web development community is just giving up with it because of IE; due to that attitude XHTML will never reach potential.

As for uploading XHTML files through FTP... seems a bit caveman to me really. If you don't check things BEFORE you put them on a live site (I use a development subdomain) then you really need your head checking. No matter what stage you are in the site development, you need to go through the write -> validate -> check -> fix -> repeat until no issues -> update processes. I really don't think I need to tell you this as it's common sense, but judging by your comments you're forgetting it.

Anyway, to be honest I see only one real argument against XHTML, and that is IE. If the IE developers got off their backsides and decided to do something for a change, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Sure, XHTML needs validation. I see that as a plus, and I always will. Would you write a server-side application and upload it to a live site without checking it? Would you write a C++ application and compile it, then distribute it without checking for errors (hypothetically speaking)?

If you say no, and I do hope you would, why on earth would you forget that when marking up content?

One thing I've noticed more and more recently is that I'm particularly strict when it comes to code, programming and otherwise. Whilst HTML certainly isn't programming, it deserves (albeit unrequires) that level of strictness. XHTML simply removes the bubble wrap from the katana blade that is markup. Sure, you need to know how to use it, but it's the same with everything computers.

This is where the money comes into IT. You think your client's going to write valid markup? Doubtful, in fact they can produce downright disgraceful attempts. Of course, if they supplied a word document (which, in my experience, they prefer) and you put it onto their website for them, you now have an extra revenue stream and they have a perfectly accessible and correct website. Win-win, no?

Some things are better left to the guys who know what they're doing. If a piano was made so that a tone-deaf maniac could play something to the quality of Tchaikovsky with a 5-minute prep lesson, then that would be a very sad day for music. Why is it that we let that happen to web development?

Off Topic:

Me? Sleep deprived? How did you tell!

User Tag List

Thread: Please Clarify XHTML 1.0?

Thread Tools

Display

Please Clarify XHTML 1.0?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions