SitePoint.com

Rizal · Jul 21, 2003, 00:02

I'm not sure whether this has been asked before, but here goes.

To ensure current and future compatibility, which one should I use, and why?

Dan Grossman · Jul 21, 2003, 00:33

If coded PROPERLY, both of them will be compatible for many years to come. None of the browser makers have any intention of dropping HTML4 support any time in the foreseeable future.

If you're going the XHTML route, remember that you're going to need to separate your structure from your design as completely as possible. This means full use of CSS for layout of your page and as few tables as possible. XHTML is both backwards and forwards compatible -- it'll render on current and past browsers, but you're not going to have the same presentation on 4x generation and older (to most people, this means Netscape 4.x) browsers. They'll get the content, but likely not the design. The advantage to XHTML is easier updating, and if validly written, compatibility with most current and future browsers, phones, PDAs, and accessibility such as screen readers. Writing valid XHTML will also make it much reader to reach those accessibility guidelines becoming law in many countries. Another huge advantage is in bandwidth -- the average XHTML1.0/CSS page (like SitePoint's site, specifically outside of the forums) is much lighter than an HTML4 page because all you get is the content, not the formatting. The stylesheet only has to be downloaded once. Speaking of that, don't forget you can change the entire look and feel of your site, the entire design, just by editing your stylesheets.

If you need it to look pixel perfect in older browsers without the CSS support a true XHTML/CSS page requires, go with HTML 4. Like I said above, you still need to code it properly, and browsers won't stop supporting this in the future as long as you make proper use of the DOCTYPE tag. You can figure out the drawbacks by reading the advantages of XHTML.

If you're interested in the XHTML/CSS route and want some extra help, I recommend the book "Designing with Web Standards" (much over SP's book).

Good luck

quenting · Jul 21, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

This means full use of CSS for layout of your page and as few tables as possible

I don't see anywhere in xhtml where it states you have to use as few tables as possible.
xhtml just means "clean code" and "xml compatible", and while the philosophy behind it is that it provides a better environment for CSS prevalence over tables it doesn't mean you have to do it. You can also style tables with CSS very easily, and in some (many ?) cases that will do a cleaner and smaller html (which are the two main arguments for CSS-P) than if using CSS.

just my 2 cents
Quentin

Dan Grossman · Jul 21, 2003, 00:53

XHTML doesn't state anything about how you should go about using it -- you can wrap your site in a million tables and make each page a megabyte in size.

It's just the philosophy that goes along with transitioning towards XML. If you don't want to try to adopt that philosophy, stick to HTML 4? This is just my advice as well, but I see no reason to use XHTML if you're not going to make the full changeover from the old way of thinking about web page design.

Another 2 cents from me. You're getting rich, Rizal.

hurricane.uk · Jul 21, 2003, 03:20

XHTML is an extension of the HTML 4.01 standard, bringing XML functionality into it. By using xhtml over html 4.01 you will be opening your site up to a number of UAs that can't access html as well as a browser can, and also providing the capacity for your markup to interact with programming and scripting languages in a more logical way.

xhtmlcoder · Jul 22, 2003, 08:50

eXtensible HyperText Markup Language (XHTML) is well-formed eXtensible Markup Language (XML) that has been written to mimic HTML 4.01.

Thus for future proofing the XHTML Family has the edge and potentially a wider user-agent, platform base and greater interoperability as was mentioned before.

Dan Grossman · Jul 23, 2003, 01:24

Woot, our thread made it into the Tech Times

AlexW · Jul 23, 2003, 01:30

I think XHTML is a good habit to get into. It takes little time to learn the differences and is more accessible for non-browser devices. Anyway it feels good

After a while I couldn't bring myself to write HTML anymore. I kinda feel dirty even seeing a in my old code, let alone writing one... hehehe . Have to spin a find and replace through the code before I can touch it. And unclosed list items?!?! (involuntary shiver)

firegryphon3207 · Jul 23, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexW

And unclosed list items?!?! (involuntary shiver)

I'm not having too much trouble making the change. I was already in the habit of closing tags to begin with. When I started learning, I closed all tags possible, it was too confusing to try and remember which ones you had to close and which ones you didn't. It does feel good because your code is nice and neat. I have however been very lazy about changing some old code.

vgarcia · Jul 23, 2003, 06:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexW

I think XHTML is a good habit to get into. It takes little time to learn the differences and is more accessible for non-browser devices. Anyway it feels good

After a while I couldn't bring myself to write HTML anymore. I kinda feel dirty even seeing a in my old code, let alone writing one... hehehe . Have to spin a find and replace through the code before I can touch it. And unclosed list items?!?! (involuntary shiver)

still has valid uses however. Try creating a layout that makes extensive use of floats; you'll find that you need a in there at least once.

AlexW · Jul 23, 2003, 19:11

Oh I have nothing against ' '. Use it all the time.. ... just the non self-closing version ' ' makes me feel the need to wash.

vgarcia · Jul 23, 2003, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexW

Oh I have nothing against ' '. Use it all the time.. ... just the non self-closing version ' ' makes me feel the need to wash.

Yes it's a "dirty" tag to me, even in XHTML. I use it only when necessary

.

Dan Grossman · Jul 23, 2003, 20:16

What does do?

I'm only 3/4 through "Designing with Web Standards" and haven't started "Eric Meyers on CSS" yet.

AlexW · Jul 23, 2003, 20:31

Doesn't work pretty much the same as " " ?

(I wouldn't normally do it inline like that)

Dan Grossman · Jul 23, 2003, 20:32

Don't know what either do

Webnauts · Jul 23, 2003, 20:58

 breaks the text flow and resumes the next line after the specified margin is clear. This is often used to start the text below an aligned image (preventing text wrap). "none" is the default, causing a simple line break.

Rizal · Jul 24, 2003, 03:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexW

I think XHTML is a good habit to get into. It takes little time to learn the differences and is more accessible for non-browser devices. Anyway it feels good [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I'm in the middle of re-coding everything to validate to XHTML 1.0 standards. It was hard remembering closing those tags, making sure everything was properly nested but I feel much better now.

DougBTX · Jul 25, 2003, 03:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by vgarcia

still has valid uses however. Try creating a layout that makes extensive use of floats; you'll find that you need a in there at least once.

Why bother doing a CSS layout if you are going to keep on using Transitional HTML?

Douglas

Rizal · Jul 25, 2003, 04:49

I'm already sold on XHTML 1.0. Now I need to compile a list of browsers (and their versions) that support (fully/partial) this standard. Any ideas?

Webnauts · Jul 25, 2003, 05:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizal

I'm already sold on XHTML 1.0. Now I need to compile a list of browsers (and their versions) that support (fully/partial) this standard. Any ideas?

Are you looking for resources?

DougBTX · Jul 25, 2003, 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizal

I'm already sold on XHTML 1.0. Now I need to compile a list of browsers (and their versions) that support (fully/partial) this standard. Any ideas?

No browser (that I know of) supports XHTML as XML, but most are quite happy to treat it as HTML 4.01

(If you follow these guides)

Douglas

xhtmlcoder · Jul 25, 2003, 07:58

Well just remember within HTML 4.01 the start and end tags for the HTML, HEAD and BODY elements are optional, but specifying the Document Type Definition, the character encoding and the TITLE is a requirement.

That was one of the main reasons I never really liked HTML 4.01.

redux · Jul 25, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougBTX

No browser (that I know of) supports XHTML as XML, but most are quite happy to treat it as HTML 4.01

(If you follow these guides)

Douglas

if i remember correctly, an xhtml strict document sent as application/xhtml+xml to Opera7 is treated as xml...so much so that if there is an error in its syntax, it shows a big fat error message right where the syntax error occurred (and not some quirks mode stuff)

beetle · Jul 25, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougBTX

No browser (that I know of) supports XHTML as XML, but most are quite happy to treat it as HTML 4.01

Mozilla likes XML content just fine

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xml; charset=UTF-8" />

DougBTX · Jul 25, 2003, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by redux

if i remember correctly, an xhtml strict document sent as application/xhtml+xml to Opera7 is treated as xml...so much so that if there is an error in its syntax, it shows a big fat error message right where the syntax error occurred (and not some quirks mode stuff)

I stand corrected

IE6, Moz and Opera all throw nice big errors with invalid XML sent as XML, very cool. (That means that... I can use XHTML 2... today?)

There is hope yet

Douglas

Edit:

In each case, I sent this as application/xml along with a style sheet:

Code:

<?xml-stylesheet href="xml.css" type="text/css"?>
<mytag>
<my>hi</my>
<my>hii</my>
<my>hi</my>
</mytaggggggg>

With a correct end tag, all render the same

I wonder what IE5/IE5.5 do with it...

Douglas

Edit:

Works 100% in IE5.5 by the looks of it

atleast when loaded off your harddrive...

Jul 21, 2003, 00:02	#1
Rizal SitePoint Enthusiast Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 68	HTML 4.0 or XHTML 1.0? I'm not sure whether this has been asked before, but here goes. To ensure current and future compatibility, which one should I use, and why?

Jul 23, 2003, 01:30	#8
AlexW Team SitePoint Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,007	I think XHTML is a good habit to get into. It takes little time to learn the differences and is more accessible for non-browser devices. Anyway it feels good After a while I couldn't bring myself to write HTML anymore. I kinda feel dirty even seeing a <br> in my old code, let alone writing one... hehehe . Have to spin a find and replace through the code before I can touch it. And unclosed list items?!?! (involuntary shiver)

Jul 23, 2003, 19:11	#11
AlexW Team SitePoint Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,007	Oh I have nothing against '<br />'. Use it all the time.. ... just the non self-closing version '<br>' makes me feel the need to wash.

Jul 23, 2003, 20:16	#13
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 19,728	What does <br clear="all" /> do? I'm only 3/4 through "Designing with Web Standards" and haven't started "Eric Meyers on CSS" yet.

Jul 23, 2003, 20:31	#14
AlexW Team SitePoint Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,007	Doesn't <br style="clear:both"> work pretty much the same as "<br clear="all" />" ? (I wouldn't normally do it inline like that)

Jul 21, 2003, 00:33	#2
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 19,728	If coded PROPERLY, both of them will be compatible for many years to come. None of the browser makers have any intention of dropping HTML4 support any time in the foreseeable future. If you're going the XHTML route, remember that you're going to need to separate your structure from your design as completely as possible. This means full use of CSS for layout of your page and as few tables as possible. XHTML is both backwards and forwards compatible -- it'll render on current and past browsers, but you're not going to have the same presentation on 4x generation and older (to most people, this means Netscape 4.x) browsers. They'll get the content, but likely not the design. The advantage to XHTML is easier updating, and if validly written, compatibility with most current and future browsers, phones, PDAs, and accessibility such as screen readers. Writing valid XHTML will also make it much reader to reach those accessibility guidelines becoming law in many countries. Another huge advantage is in bandwidth -- the average XHTML1.0/CSS page (like SitePoint's site, specifically outside of the forums) is much lighter than an HTML4 page because all you get is the content, not the formatting. The stylesheet only has to be downloaded once. Speaking of that, don't forget you can change the entire look and feel of your site, the entire design, just by editing your stylesheets. If you need it to look pixel perfect in older browsers without the CSS support a true XHTML/CSS page requires, go with HTML 4. Like I said above, you still need to code it properly, and browsers won't stop supporting this in the future as long as you make proper use of the DOCTYPE tag. You can figure out the drawbacks by reading the advantages of XHTML. If you're interested in the XHTML/CSS route and want some extra help, I recommend the book "Designing with Web Standards" (much over SP's book). Good luck

Jul 21, 2003, 00:53	#4
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 19,728	XHTML doesn't state anything about how you should go about using it -- you can wrap your site in a million tables and make each page a megabyte in size. It's just the philosophy that goes along with transitioning towards XML. If you don't want to try to adopt that philosophy, stick to HTML 4? This is just my advice as well, but I see no reason to use XHTML if you're not going to make the full changeover from the old way of thinking about web page design. Another 2 cents from me. You're getting rich, Rizal.

Jul 21, 2003, 03:20	#5
hurricane.uk SitePoint Addict Join Date: May 2003 Location: Liverpool Posts: 361	XHTML is an extension of the HTML 4.01 standard, bringing XML functionality into it. By using xhtml over html 4.01 you will be opening your site up to a number of UAs that can't access html as well as a browser can, and also providing the capacity for your markup to interact with programming and scripting languages in a more logical way.

Jul 22, 2003, 08:50	#6
xhtmlcoder Robert Wellock Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A Maze of Twisty Little Passages Posts: 1,862	eXtensible HyperText Markup Language (XHTML) is well-formed eXtensible Markup Language (XML) that has been written to mimic HTML 4.01. Thus for future proofing the XHTML Family has the edge and potentially a wider user-agent, platform base and greater interoperability as was mentioned before.

Jul 23, 2003, 01:24	#7
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 19,728	Woot, our thread made it into the Tech Times

Jul 23, 2003, 20:32	#15
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 19,728	Don't know what either do

Jul 23, 2003, 20:58	#16
Webnauts Organic SEO Expert Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: European Union Posts: 1,577	<br clear=all or left or right or none> breaks the text flow and resumes the next line after the specified margin is clear. This is often used to start the text below an aligned image (preventing text wrap). "none" is the default, causing a simple line break.

Jul 25, 2003, 04:49	#19
Rizal SitePoint Enthusiast Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 68	I'm already sold on XHTML 1.0. Now I need to compile a list of browsers (and their versions) that support (fully/partial) this standard. Any ideas?

Jul 25, 2003, 07:58	#22
xhtmlcoder Robert Wellock Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A Maze of Twisty Little Passages Posts: 1,862	Well just remember within HTML 4.01 the start and end tags for the HTML, HEAD and BODY elements are optional, but specifying the Document Type Definition, the character encoding and the TITLE is a requirement. That was one of the main reasons I never really liked HTML 4.01.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode