SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    189
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    is there an XHTML 1.1 Strict?

    I usually use XHTML 1.0 Strict but was looking around and I see some XHTML 1.1 but no strict declarations.. Is XHTML 1.1 already strict?

    Any examples of the correct declaration?

  2. #2
    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)
    Nope. XHTML 1.1 is by definition strict - as strict as you can possibly get.

    Too bad it's not deployable in the wild (aka real world).

  3. #3
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    189
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Schulz View Post
    Nope. XHTML 1.1 is by definition strict - as strict as you can possibly get.

    Too bad it's not deployable in the wild (aka real world).
    thx! n what do u mean by its not deployable ?

  4. #4
    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)
    Because for starters, it must be delivered as an XML application, and Microsoft doesn't support XHTML at all in its flagship Windows Internet Explorer browser. (IE still has by far the largest browser market share.)

  5. #5
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,875
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Provided that you can make sure that no one visiting your site is using Internet Explorer then there is nothing preventing you from using XHTML 1.1 (of course using XHTML 1.1 is the quickest way of making sure that you don't have any IE users).

    So there is no reason why you couldn't deploy it for an intranet where you can make sure that IE isn't the browser being used.

    If as has been suggested, IE9 uses a different rendering engine in place of trident then there is a good chance that it will support XHTML and so if that is the case then once your IE8 and below users fall to a low enough number to tell them to go away then you can consider deploying XHTML on the internet (in about 20 years time perhaps).

    The transitional doctypes are there for transitioning old pages to the newer web standards. Since there iare no pages that could be transitioned to XHTML 1.1 there is no need for a transitional version of that doctype.
    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="^$">

  6. #6
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    A slightly interesting but off topic sidenote Dan, there is an element within the XHTML specification called ruby which allows annotation of international characters. What is interesting about it is within Internet Explorer it forms an incompatibility paradox... Internet Explorer is currently the only browser to support <ruby> (and its subset elements) yet ruby at the point of implementation was only part of the XHTML spec (though now its part of HTML5), so for once in its life Internet Explorer beat the other browsers at implementing something yet the thing it implemented couldn't legitimately be used as they forgot to add support for XHTML.

  7. #7
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    A slightly interesting but off topic sidenote Dan, there is an element within the XHTML specification called ruby which allows annotation of international characters. What is interesting about it is within Internet Explorer it forms an incompatibility paradox... Internet Explorer is currently the only browser to support <ruby> (and its subset elements) yet ruby at the point of implementation was only part of the XHTML spec (though now its part of HTML5), so for once in its life Internet Explorer beat the other browsers at implementing something yet the thing it implemented couldn't legitimately be used as they forgot to add support for XHTML.
    The only browser that renders ruby natively is IE, but then only for simple ruby. An addon is available for Firefox that enables both simple and complex ruby.
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1935

  8. #8
    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)
    I wouldn't call it a paradox, just Microsoft's Internet Explorer team possibly thinking ahead. Makes me wonder though (and I'm not about to go searching to find out) who threw it into the proposed HTML 5 specification.

  9. #9
    . shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,013
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Schulz View Post
    I wouldn't call it a paradox, just Microsoft's Internet Explorer team possibly thinking ahead...
    I'm not sure thinking ahead is the right word, more out of need. A lot of the help files and information displays in Windows utilize trident to render that information. Ruby is a good asset for creating localized information (for East Asian languages).
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  10. #10
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Cooper, I know about that addon but I do not count it because it isnt native to the browser but more importantly, I have heard a LOT of bad stuff about it doing some major voodoo on your firefox and it has been known to totally wreck the browser to the point of crashing, lol

  11. #11
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,875
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Cooper, I know about that addon but I do not count it because it isnt native to the browser
    You shouldn't count the support in IE either then since it in not a part of any of the standards that IE supports and therefore counts as proprietary tags in that browser.
    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="^$">

  12. #12
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    felgall, that is a rather misdirected statement, for a tag to be proprietary it has to (technically) be of the browser manufacturers own creation (as in if Microsoft themselves produced and implemented the element) as all proprietary elements of the past have been. While <ruby> may itself not be implemented correctly in the browser (though as IE8 supports parts of HTML5 it technically fits into that specification) it should be noted that ruby annotation (as implemented in IE) is a recommended and accepted W3C specification.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/

  13. #13
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,875
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    felgall, that is a rather misdirected statement, for a tag to be proprietary it has to (technically) be of the browser manufacturers own creation (as in if Microsoft themselves produced and implemented the element) as all proprietary elements of the past have been. While <ruby> may itself not be implemented correctly in the browser (though as IE8 supports parts of HTML5 it technically fits into that specification) it should be noted that ruby annotation (as implemented in IE) is a recommended and accepted W3C specification.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/
    It is no different from any other proprietary tag that has subsequently been adopted into a standard (and at the moment with the HTML5 standard being at the very early draft stage it will probably adopt lots of other proprietary tags before it becomes a standard).
    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="^$">


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
  •