Validation: XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict

[CMAR]

What are the pluses and minuses of constructing and validating between
XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict

Thanks, CMA

[Neal]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:10:46 GMT, CMAR <cm***@yahoo.co m> wrote:

What are the pluses and minuses of constructing and validating between
XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict

Thanks, CMA

If you use XML tools to build the page, XHTML is worthwhile if you can
serve it properly (which includes accounting for that set of browsers
which cannot handle properly-served XHTML).

Otherwise, there is no benefit I'm aware of.

[Brian]

CMAR wrote:

What are the pluses and minuses of constructing and validating
between XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict

Your comparing different variants of different languages. Let's
separate them.

transitional v. strict
----------------------
transitional is meant to east the transition (get it?) from HTML 3.2
pseudo desktop publishing markup to a more SGML semantic markup. There
is very little presentational aid in strict, so you'll be relying on
CSS almost exclusively for the layout/colors. I think that's an
advantage. CSS gives you more options, and is more efficient. It is
also a depressing experiment in browser bugs, so brace yourself.

winner? strict
XHTML v HTML
------------
XHTML is a reformulation of HTML as an XML application. Lots of people
think it's superior because it came after HTML 4, and is thus the
newest standard. But they don't have any reason to use it other than
"it's the latest".

XHTML offers no advantages over HTML in terms of markup. There are no
additional elements, no radically different constructs. Nonetheless,
it supposed to be served with a different MIME type. HTML is
text/html, whereas XHTML is application/xhtml+xml. The problem is that
MSIE does not understand this new MIME type. So servers send it with
text/html. That leads to its own problems:

http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Since it offers no benefits, but does have drawbacks, the answer seems
obvious, unless you have specific reasons for needing XHTML.

winner? HTML
In short, use HTML 4.01/strict.

HTH

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Brian wrote:

Your comparing different variants of different languages.

Jeez Louise. My sister just misused "your" instead of "you're" in an
email to me, and apparently it's contagious. That should be "You're
comparing...." (Sure, it's pathetic to blame someone else for my
screwups, but that one is too embarassing to take the fall by myself.)

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Daniel R. Tobias]

Brian wrote:

Brian wrote:

Your comparing different variants of different languages.

Jeez Louise. My sister just misused "your" instead of "you're" in an
email to me, and apparently it's contagious. That should be "You're
comparing...." (Sure, it's pathetic to blame someone else for my
screwups, but that one is too embarassing to take the fall by myself.)

People also ought to attempt to spell "HTML" correctly when posting to
an HTML newsgroup, shouldn't they?

--
Dan

[s_m_b]

"CMAR" <cm***@yahoo.co m> wrote in news:qEbMc.5675 8$yd5.32501
@twister.nyroc. rr.com:

in theory, web browsers can handle xhtml specifics - self closing tags for
instance, but that, as always is up to the software houses to sort.

The advantage of xhtml is the better structure you're forced to, with a far
stricter ruleset for how all the tags have to be written. xhtml 2, just
released in draft, goes somewhat further with some important tag changes;
this is, of course the rub. You still find pages out there that are written
in html 2, but they look dreadful. Keeping up with the current standards,
as xhtml is (html 4 has been around about as long as M$ NT4, at M$ have
stopped support for that now) is important.

In the end, validating xhtml is tougher, but you end up with a better
formatted document.

What are the pluses and minuses of constructing and validating between
XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict

Thanks, CMA

[Brian]

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

Brian wrote:

That should be "You're comparing...."

People also ought to attempt to spell "HTML" correctly when posting
to an HTML newsgroup, shouldn't they?

Uh, I'll take what's coming to me for mixing up "your" and "you're",
but I'm afraid the op is on the hook for transposing the letters in
the subject, so take it up with him.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

> "CMAR" <cm***@yahoo.co m> wrote

What are the pluses and minuses of constructing and validating
between
XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict

s_m_b wrote:
in theory, web browsers can handle xhtml specifics - self closing tags for
instance, but that, as always is up to the software houses to sort.
Theory does not match reality. The most popular software used to
browse web pages, MSIE/Win cannot handle xhtml when served up properly.

http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
The advantage of xhtml is the better structure you're forced to, with a far
stricter ruleset for how all the tags have to be written.
If you want stricter syntax (e.g., explicitly closed p and li
elements), then just close them. That's no reason to choose XHTML.
xhtml 2, just
released in draft, goes somewhat further with some important tag changes;
Since it breaks backward compatability, it's hard to see what
advantages it has as an authoing language.
Keeping up with the current standards,
as xhtml is (html 4 has been around about as long as M$ NT4, at M$ have
stopped support for that now) is important.

One should not decide on XHTML simply because it's new. If there isn't
a reason, then HTML is the way to go.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Kris]

In article <10************ *@corp.supernew s.com>,
Brian <us*****@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:

s_m_b wrote:

in theory, web browsers can handle xhtml specifics - self closing tags for
instance, but that, as always is up to the software houses to sort.

Theory does not match reality. The most popular software used to
browse web pages, MSIE/Win cannot handle xhtml when served up properly.

http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

If ound it somehow disturbing that it does not talk about a future
transition to 'real' XHTML of ones markup. It costs authors little
trouble of writing XHTML right now and serving it as HTML tagsoup
because current browser limitations enforces that.

One of the caveats being that authors could be easily thinking that they
produce documents that can be served as application/xhtml+xml anytime of
their choosing without a problem. Often, a document is not well-formed
from the start or it loses well-formedness over time because of updates
to it's content. Also, scripts embedded or attached to the document are
often not good enough to continue function in browsers when the switch
to real XHTML is made.

The advantage of xhtml is the better structure you're forced to, with a far
stricter ruleset for how all the tags have to be written.

If you want stricter syntax (e.g., explicitly closed p and li
elements), then just close them. That's no reason to choose XHTML.

Choosing for the Strict version of HTML4.01 or XHTML1.0 would make a
bigger difference than choosing between HTML4.01 or XHTML1.0. Strict is
the magic to better strictness and that should be self-evident by it's
name.

If authors serve their XHTML as text/html, which in return makes UAs
interpret it as HTML tagsoup, there is no 'forced to more strictness',
because the author does not get penalized with an XML parsing error for
making a mistake when checking the page.

Keeping up with the current standards,
as xhtml is (html 4 has been around about as long as M$ NT4, at M$ have
stopped support for that now) is important.

One should not decide on XHTML simply because it's new. If there isn't
a reason, then HTML is the way to go.

No comment on that. Found it important to have it quoted here for anyone
who is considering using XHTML.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4a ll.netherlands> (nl)

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:00:36 +0200, Kris
<kr*******@xs4a ll.netherlands> wrote:

In article <10************ *@corp.supernew s.com>,
Brian <us*****@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:

s_m_b wrote:

> in theory, web browsers can handle xhtml specifics - self closing tags for
> instance, but that, as always is up to the software houses to sort.
Theory does not match reality. The most popular software used to
browse web pages, MSIE/Win cannot handle xhtml when served up properly.

http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

If ound it somehow disturbing that it does not talk about a future
transition to 'real' XHTML of ones markup.

That's because it's trivial to convert valid HTML 4.01 to XHTML, no
trouble at all, in fact it's a lot easier than authoring XHTML
straight than follows the observations of Appendix C.
If authors serve their XHTML as text/html, which in return makes UAs
interpret it as HTML tagsoup, there is no 'forced to more strictness',
because the author does not get penalized with an XML parsing error for
making a mistake when checking the page.

It's the user that is penalised in the above scenario, not the author.

XML WF constraints should not exist on user focused languages.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/