SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    SitePoint Zealot Stancy_McKatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NW Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question Should I Switch My site to XHtml?

    I'm fixing to remodle my site, and I was wondering if as I redo it should I switch the tags to XHTML? As it would be be easyer to do so while reworking the layout insted of just converting the older one.

    If you think I should, or shouldn't, please explain your reasons.

    ~Crys

    P.S. Most of my vistors use IE 4.0 an up, and Netscape 6 an up.

  2. #2
    (****** or Deleted)
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    299
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At the least I think you should change to XHTML 1 Transitional, which is mainly just making sure all of your tags are in lower case, all required atributes are included, all values are in quotes, and all tags are closed properly...

    This was at least your page is using correct markup, but if you want to take it further you can go to XHTML 1 Strict, but this requires using CSS for positioning, completely seperating formatting from structure and can be a big jump...

    If you have any questions feel free to post em here
    Jordan Windebank

  3. #3
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wizardx8,

    Could you point the way to any good resources on XHTML? I am looking to change my site over and need some specific guidance.

    Do you recommend using XHTML 2.0?

    Thanks in advance,
    Joe

  4. #4
    (****** or Deleted)
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    299
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You can find some pretty good information at the w3schools:

    http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/default.asp

    Just go through the links down the left hand side one by one and you'll be right... Also no browsers support XHTML 2 yet afaik so is no point coding for it, it is still only a draft, you will need to wait until the full specification has been released and browsers support it...

    If you have any further questions feel free to ask...
    Jordan Windebank

  5. #5
    SitePoint Zealot Stancy_McKatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NW Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the link! I'll save that to look at later.

    ~Crys

  6. #6
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I try to code in xhtml transitional, but some tags wont work using the xhtml specification. The main one I encountered was <iframe>, if you do it with <iframe /> it wont work but <iframe></iframe> does.
    Andy: Always Morphin Dwarfs

  7. #7
    (****** or Deleted)
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    299
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Andy, not sure why the iframe tag is structured as it is, maybe so you can have alternative text for if the frame does not load? I am not sure, but is deffinately out of character with the rest of the spec...

    http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_iframe.asp
    Jordan Windebank

  8. #8
    SitePoint Wizard iTec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Wizardx8
    but if you want to take it further you can go to XHTML 1 Strict, but this requires using CSS for positioning, completely seperating formatting from structure and can be a big jump.
    where do the w3c specs say that? Last time i read them the only place that mentioned a preference of css over table ayouts was the WAI guidlines, it is still possible, and quite easy to make a site XHTML strict and still use tables.


  9. #9
    (****** or Deleted)
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    299
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well yes, true, but it sort of defeats the purpose of using XHTML Strict then doesn't it
    Jordan Windebank

  10. #10
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, I would change to xhtml but you could say I am bias; but I've allways found it easier to write XHTML than HTML.

    The things you'll have to watch is if you use inline JavaScript and you might have problems if you rely on WYSINWYG editors.
    Last edited by xhtmlcoder; Sep 26, 2002 at 04:48.

  11. #11
    SitePoint Zealot Stancy_McKatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NW Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    WYSIWUG editor! Sir you insult me.... Just Kidding! I use Arachnophilia. I can't stand to use the WYSIWUG things, I never seem to be able to get things to look the way that I want them to.

    I'm going to do it in XHtml, except for being a bit more nitpicky on a few things it looks like it's about the same as I'm doing now. Well what I've read about it, anyway.

    ~Crys

  12. #12
    BoOm-Rocka! Smarky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dreamweaver MX does actually support xhtml.

    If your going to start using CSS to position things instead of tables remember that browser compatibility will suffer esp in Netscape 4, if that is going to be a problem.

    I think that personally before going this route I will wait a little longer, standards generally have to be used for a few years before you can use them and feel safe about compatibility with browsers.
    Garlic bread, I've tasted it, it's the future

  13. #13
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is the difference between XHTML transitional and XHTML strict as far as I know:

    'Transitional' allows the use of depracated tags/attributes, and 'Strict' does not.

    Transitional is only needed if you are in a transitional peroid yourself, for instance where you have a lot of content which uses depracated tags that you will eventually replace.

    Both transitional and strict require well-formed code. There is no 'loose'.

    You can use tables in much the same manner in transitional and strict. CSS is independant of XHTML.

    The only reason you would want to use CSS instead of tables for layout, is for simplicity in updating your layout or providing alternative layouts in the future, and for forward compatibility. It will be using the standard for what it was intended, rather than using tables, which is only a workaround. It's a worthwhile incentive and a good learning process.
    [mmj] My magic jigsaw
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Bit Depth Blog Twitter Contact me
    Neon Javascript Framework Jokes Android stuff


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
  •