is there an XHTML 1.1 Strict?

[enwise]

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?

[Dan Schulz]

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).

[enwise]

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 ?

[Dan Schulz]

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.)

[felgall]

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.

[AlexDawson]

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.

[Dan Schulz]

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.

[cooper.semantics]

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

[AlexDawson]

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

[felgall]

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.

[AlexDawson]

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/

[logic_earth]

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).

[felgall]

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).