Xhtml
- Started
- Last post
- 24 Responses
- unknown
ok, hands up - who's now coding in proper xhtml?
*rests hands by side and frowns
- popovich0
me :) not for the clients though.... xhtml-transitional, that is.
- unknown0
right and tables or css positioning?
- mrming0
I am determined to start learning soon. Anyone know any good books / resources?
- angelus350
Count me in. I think XHTML is a great idea. I read a statistic one time that something like 80% of the code in most web browsers are error handling code for the browser to be able to decipher inproperly coded pages. XHTML in theory would help that because the extra error handling wouldn't be necassary. Plus it kind of sounds cool.
- mrming0
I have only just ditched tables. *drags knuckles along floor*
- popovich0
tables for sure - but for tabular data :)) http://kaubasa.net/3/home/ | http://kaubasa.net/3/forum/- might not really validate right now, but it's still in heavy developement
- unknown0
xeldman and alistapart have convinced me it's the way to go, but the fecking time involved, when I could be making pretty pictures instead!
- unknown0
(Zeldman that is)
- blend20
XML and XSL stylesheets rocked my world.
- neeko0
234 errors on page forgetting the "/" at the end of each image tag... bummer.
- unknown0
on which site?
- squidfingers0
100% 1.0 strict for my personal site. My work still requires me to code in hybrid tables/css.
- neeko0
the first thing i had to do for a job im currently working on is show some dude what his acronym/logo would look like using different fonts (after i explained the magic of fonts to him)
i thought this would be a good place to start my switch over to xhtml compliance...
- neeko0
tables get a bad rap... i'm all about table love.
- unknown0
hey there Travis.
love the new squidfingers!
- enobrev0
xhtml trans. is phenominal. too many customers require old browser / table support though.
i don't expect to follow spec 100% for at least another year, all though all my br's have /> after them.
I feel it's pretty silly to follow fully until the browsers catch up (only for business, of course.. personal should be on par )
- CX0
I thought xhtml was backwards compatible with old browsers?
- Pixelgraft0
For my more creative sites it's CSS2, CSSP and XHTML trans. They're great. Write it on a PC in IE and as long as you minfd yer units, it'll work on a Mac, in Netscape and quite possibly Opera. With one set of code.
For sites that require 100% compatability (rather than 96% or whatever it would be) I'd go back to HTML4 style tables etc and cross browser headaches... gnnngh...
- unknown0
Depends on the version and how far back you're talking about.
XHTML1.0
The Transitional, Strict and Frameset versions of XHTML1.0 are simply reformulations of HTML4.01 in XML-compliant markup. The only differences between them are that Frameset allows the document to contain child frames, Transitional is for a document that has legacy markup such as the font and target elements, and Strict is for documents that rely on stylesheets for formatting. XHTML1.0 is broadly backwards-compatible with browsers that can render HTML4.01. Note that care should still be taken with inline comments within scripts and styles, as the document must conform to the rules of XML.XHTML Basic
Newer versions (1.1+) of XHTML are modular. That is, extra elements can be added into the core html markup if and when a suitable Document Type Definition or XML Schema exists. The basic set of HTML elements and attributes are described by XHTML Basic, which is particularly aimed at "lightweight" user agents such as palm-top browsers and mobile devices.XHTML1.1
Developed from XHTML1.0 Strict, XHTML1.1 takes modularity to fruition by allowing inline MathML, SMIL, SVG and similar XML-based languages. Most of the pages on tomoakley.net are written in XHTML1.1 for this reason. At the time of writing it is the latest version of XHTML recommended by the W3C.XHTML2.0
Version 2.0 breaks from the legacies of HTML4.01 and is not intended to be backwards-compatible with basic HTML browsers. More details will be posted here as they become available. The author does not recommend the use of XHTML2.0 because it is likely to change and is not supported in any meaningful way by user agents.