473,842 Members | 1,481 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0


I read this in http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/12/xhtml-notes

"A common misconception is that XHTML 1.1 is the latest version
of the XHTML series. And although it was released a bit more
than a year later then the first version of XHTML 1.0, the second
edition is actually newer. Furthermore, XHTML 1.1 is not really
the follow-up of XHTML 1.0"

I thought that XHTML 1.1 was the follow-up to XHTML 1.0 and that
XHTML 2.0 will someday be the follow-up to XHTML 1.1. Am I wrong?

Sep 12 '05
82 5732
Buford Early wrote:
"A common misconception is that XHTML 1.1 is the latest version
of the XHTML series. And although it was released a bit more
than a year later then the first version of XHTML 1.0, the second
edition is actually newer. Furthermore, XHTML 1.1 is not really
the follow-up of XHTML 1.0"


The second edition of XHTML 1.0 is not a new standard. It is just a
rewritten, clarified version of the old XHTML 1.0.

XHTML 1.1 is newer as standards go. From an author's point of view it is
almost identical to XHTML 1.0 Strict, but with ruby added, and a handful
of attributes dropped (*@lang, a@name, map@name). Unless you need ruby,
there's not an awful lot of argument in favour of using it. OTOH, unless
you need to support truly ancient browsers, or need to use client-side
image maps, there's not an awful lot argument against it.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Sep 13 '05 #11
Toby Inkster <us**********@t obyinkster.co.u k> wrote:
XHTML 1.1 is newer as standards go. From an author's point of view it is
almost identical to XHTML 1.0 Strict, but with ruby added, and a handful
of attributes dropped (*@lang, a@name, map@name). Unless you need ruby,
there's not an awful lot of argument in favour of using it. OTOH, unless
you need to support truly ancient browsers, or need to use client-side
image maps, there's not an awful lot argument against it.


So far I've not seen you produce an argument that would support ignoring
w3c's guideline not to serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html.

--
Spartanicus
Sep 13 '05 #12
You are not wrong the XHTML should be taken serious.

Sep 13 '05 #13
You are not wrong the XHTML should be taken serious.

Sep 13 '05 #14
You are not wrong the XHTML should be taken serious.

Sep 13 '05 #15

Spartanicus wrote:

Toby Inkster wrote:
XHTML 1.1 is newer as standards go. From an author's point of view it is
almost identical to XHTML 1.0 Strict, but with ruby added, and a handful
of attributes dropped (*@lang, a@name, map@name). Unless you need ruby,
there's not an awful lot of argument in favour of using it. OTOH, unless
you need to support truly ancient browsers, or need to use client-side
image maps, there's not an awful lot argument against it.
So far I've not seen you produce an argument that would support ignoring
w3c's guideline not to serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html.


(Warning: I am by no means an expert on this, but I seem to muddle
through OK; be sure to check the replies for corrections...)

I cut and pasted this chart from somewhere:
application application
Media Type text/html /xhtml+xml /xml text/xml
HTML 4.01 SHOULD MUST NOT MUST NOT MUST NOT
XHTML 1.0 (HTML Compat.) MAY SHOULD MAY MAY
XHTML 1.0 (other) SHOULD NOT SHOULD MAY MAY
XHTML Basic SHOULD NOT SHOULD MAY MAY
XHTML 1.1 SHOULD NOT SHOULD MAY MAY

....so it seems to me that if you are willing to serve your pages as
application/xhtml+xml then there is no reason to avoid XHTML 1.1,
but if you decide to to serve your pages as text/html then there is
no good reason to use anything except HTML 4.01.

I have been redoing my webpages, and I have decided to have two copies
of each page: one is HTML 4.01 strict served as text/html with a filename
of *.html, and the other is XHTML 1.1 served as application/xhtml+xml
with a filename of *.xhtml - all with appropriatly labelled navigation
links to give the user a choice of versions.

As far as I can tell, if I am careful with my markup, the only
differences will be...

(.html)

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
(.xhtml)

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
(.htaccess)

DirectoryIndex index.html index.xhtml
AddType 'text/html; charset=US-ASCII' html
AddType 'application/xhtml+xml; charset=US-ASCII' xhtml

....and I already wrote a macro that makes the two versions.

Corrections/comments/ass-chewings welcome!)

*************** *************** **********

(...added later...)
I just did some Googling to see if he above is totally stupid,
and I found the following in an example document:

Example of an XHTML 2.0 document

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css"
href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/style/xhtml2.css"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en"
xmlns:xsi="http ://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocat ion="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd"


Do I need any of the extra stuff above, or is my simpler version above
suitable for what I am doing? I do use CSS, but no tables, math, etc.
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.co m/>

When it comes to web design, I am is a pretty
good assembly language programmer... :)

Sep 13 '05 #16
In article <11************ *@corp.supernew s.com>,
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.co m/> wrote:
but if you decide to to serve your pages as text/html then there is
no good reason to use anything except HTML 4.01.

I have been redoing my webpages, and I have decided to have two copies
of each page: one is HTML 4.01 strict served as text/html with a filename
of *.html, and the other is XHTML 1.1 served as application/xhtml+xml
with a filename of *.xhtml - all with appropriatly labelled navigation
links to give the user a choice of versions.
Out of curiosity, what use case inspired you to expend the extra effort
the maintain two versions? (I have been making observations about the
subject matter for some time now, and I am always curious about motives
that I may have failed to consider myself.)

BTW, if you are referring to http://www.guymacon.com/ , the site shows
an Apache-generated directory listing.
Example of an XHTML 2.0 document

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css"
href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/style/xhtml2.css"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en"
xmlns:xsi="http ://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocat ion="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd"


Do I need any of the extra stuff above, or is my simpler version above
suitable for what I am doing? I do use CSS, but no tables, math, etc.


That's from a XHTML 2.0 draft and, due to the draft status at the very
least, should not be deployed on the Web.

There's an awful lot of boilerplate cruft. The crux of the matter is
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en">
The rest is some serious cruft. (And some people would categorize the
namespace declaration as cruft, too, along with the whole concept of
namespaces...)

See also
http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005-08-10/Today_s_XM

The issue tracker page I already referred to provides some hints about
the world view of the HTML WG:
http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/x...ocType?id=7336

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Sep 13 '05 #17
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.co m/> wrote:
...so it seems to me that if you are willing to serve your pages as
application/xhtml+xml then there is no reason to avoid XHTML 1.1,
IE and certain other browsers can't handle it, bot compatibility is
questionable, and you are disadvantaging users who use a Gecko based
browser since it cannot render XHTML served as such incrementally.
I have been redoing my webpages, and I have decided to have two copies
of each page: one is HTML 4.01 strict served as text/html with a filename
of *.html, and the other is XHTML 1.1 served as application/xhtml+xml
with a filename of *.xhtml - all with appropriatly labelled navigation
links to give the user a choice of versions.
Users don't give a flying monkey for code versions, and you'd at least
need to request that SE bots do not index the xhtml pages. So what's the
point?
As far as I can tell, if I am careful with my markup, the only
differences will be...

(.html)

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
(.xhtml)

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
There are other differences such as mandatory attribute value quoting,
required closing of elements etc.
Example of an XHTML 2.0 document


XHTML 2.0 is not finished, and currently defined as being non backward
compatible.

--
Spartanicus
Sep 13 '05 #18


Henri Sivonen wrote:
BTW, if you are referring to http://www.guymacon.com/ , the site shows
an Apache-generated directory listing.
I am in the middle of updating it, and I cleared everything out and
am redoing the entire structure (with 301 redirects so that the old
URLs still work, of course).
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.co m/> wrote:
but if you decide to to serve your pages as text/html then there is
no good reason to use anything except HTML 4.01.

I have been redoing my webpages, and I have decided to have two copies
of each page: one is HTML 4.01 strict served as text/html with a filename
of *.html, and the other is XHTML 1.1 served as application/xhtml+xml
with a filename of *.xhtml - all with appropriatly labelled navigation
links to give the user a choice of versions.


Out of curiosity, what use case inspired you to expend the extra effort
the maintain two versions? (I have been making observations about the
subject matter for some time now, and I am always curious about motives
that I may have failed to consider myself.)


Mine is a special case.

My first motivation: I have a lot of engineers and engineering managers
who examine my markup for clues as to what kind of engineer I am.
Having a link to an XHTML 1.1 version is good PR for me.

My second motivation: I design products that use webpages as the user
interface. People love to be able to fire up the old browser to see
how the robotic assembly line is doing. This makes it important for
me to know about things like the difference between HTML and XHTML,
how to make pages work well with cellphone browsers, etc.

My third motivation; I am a geek and find playing with technology to
be relaxing.

Sep 13 '05 #19

Spartanicus wrote:
Users don't give a flying monkey for code versions,
*Your* users don't give a flying monkey for code versions. *My* users
comment on things like my decision to switch from XHTML-Basic to XHTML
1.0.
There are other differences such as mandatory attribute value quoting,
required closing of elements etc.
I am unaware of any difference that makes it so that I cannot write
a simple webpage that works in XHTML 2.0 and HTML 4.01 strict.
XHTML 2.0 is not finished, and currently defined as being non backward
compatible.


That's the whole point of having a *.html version and a *.xhtml version.
*My* users will want to know whether their browsers will work with both
- especially when the browser in question is one I wrote to be part of
a children's toy...

Sep 13 '05 #20

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

0
1661
by: Peter Rohleder | last post by:
Hi, I have a few simple questions in order to use modularized xhtml and getting it to work. A simple example may make this obviouse: Lets say we want to create a simple xml-file to reflect a faq-structure.
59
4793
by: Philipp Lenssen | last post by:
I've tested some of the new Nokia 6600 functionality. It ships with WAP2 and XHTML Support (it says). What it does is check the Doctype -- if it's not the XHTML Mobile Profile Doctype, but a XHTML1.0 Strict one, the media-handheld CSS is _ignored_. Only with the Nokia Doctype, the CSS is used. I find this really annoying as it goes against the whole idea of media-independent XHTML Strict along with stylesheets. On the good side, WML...
32
4555
by: jp29 | last post by:
My take on problems composing, serving and rendering XHTML documents/web pages: 1. Typical conscientious web authors are producing XHTML documents (Web pages) that feature valid Markup and with the content (MIME) type specified as text/html (http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php). These pages are then loaded on to their Server where they are served to Rendering Agents (browsers) as HTML (SGML application) documents with no...
16
7129
by: Mcginkel | last post by:
I am trying to find a way to load XHTML content in an Iframe. I use to do this in html by using the following code : var iframeObject = document.createElement("iframe"); MyDiv.appendChild(iframeObject); var data = "<html><head><title>testing</title></head><body>data</body></html>" iframeObject.contentDocument.open(); iframeObject.contentDocument.writeln(data);
2
2644
by: Joris Janssens | last post by:
I'm trying to write a program for validating XHTML 1.1-documents against the XHTML 1.1 DTD (which is actually the same as validating an XML-file) but I always get a "(404) Not found" error. This is the program itself : ******************************************************************** using System; using System.Xml; using System.Xml.Schema;
12
2419
by: Alex D. | last post by:
How can I stop asp.net from rendering XHTML istead of HTML? My javascripts are rendering wrong because of that. It is rendering &amp; to clients instead of &. Any help? Thanks, Alejandro.
11
4218
by: Tomek Toczyski | last post by:
What is the best way to attach a caption to an image in xhtml? I can attach a caption to a table by a "<caption>" tag but I would like to do sth similar to an image. How to do it in a natural way? -tt.
11
3129
by: Michael Powe | last post by:
How can I make an XHTML-compliant form of an expression in this format: document.write("<scr"+"ipt type='text/javascript' src='path/to/file.js'>"+"</scr"+"ipt>"); this turns out to be a non-trivial exercise. inserting '&lt;' and '&gt;' causes the browser to write the text to the page as literal text rather than as the intended script element. Using escape codes seemed to work (makes it standard compliant) but the text is not written to...
10
2085
by: Robert Huff | last post by:
Can someone offer suggestions why, on the same server (Apache 2.2.8), this works <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> <html lang="en-US"> <head> <link rel=stylesheet type="text/css" href="proj_default.css" title="ss_default"> <title>Testing html</title> </head>
0
9717
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
10950
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
1
10681
by: Hystou | last post by:
Overview: Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
0
10318
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
7045
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5699
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
1
4506
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
4096
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3148
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.