XHTML 1.0 vs HTML 4.0

[Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950]

Just wondering about the "new" mark-up standard, now that it is several
years old! Is the handling of XHTML more consistent than the handling of
HTML by different user agents? Are there still innumerable hacks that have
to be implemented in XHTML in order to force a page to appear the same way
in IE, Gecko, & Opera browser engines?

Also, when combining server side includes with XHTML, what are the
appropriate file extensions...

Thanks in Advance...

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the nu****@fieldcraft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace
number with 11950" <nu****@fieldcraft.bizwriting in
news:44***********************@lon-reader.news.telstra.net:

Just wondering about the "new" mark-up standard, now that it is
several years old! Is the handling of XHTML more consistent than the
handling of HTML by different user agents? Are there still innumerable
hacks that have to be implemented in XHTML in order to force a page to
appear the same way in IE, Gecko, & Opera browser engines?

Also, when combining server side includes with XHTML, what are the
appropriate file extensions...

Thanks in Advance...

This has been discussed to death. You may want to check the discussion
in alt.html <http://tinyurl.com/m4wyzfor more informatin.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950]

"Adrienne Boswell" <ar****@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:Xn****************************@69.28.186.121. ..

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace
number with 11950" <nu****@fieldcraft.bizwriting in
news:44***********************@lon-reader.news.telstra.net:

Just wondering about the "new" mark-up standard, now that it is
several years old! Is the handling of XHTML more consistent than the
handling of HTML by different user agents? Are there still innumerable
hacks that have to be implemented in XHTML in order to force a page to
appear the same way in IE, Gecko, & Opera browser engines?

Also, when combining server side includes with XHTML, what are the
appropriate file extensions...

Thanks in Advance...

This has been discussed to death. You may want to check the discussion
in alt.html <http://tinyurl.com/m4wyzfor more informatin.

Thank you. I'll pilot an XHTML page once the site template is complete.

HTML 4.01 & XHTML 1.0 as dual output options for Web Sergeant 2006 if the
XHTML Strict DTD can produce the same degree of fuctionality as in HTML 4.01
Strict, and if the XHTML Strict DTD performs better across UAs, then the
site will go up in XHTML...

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the nu****@fieldcraft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz

[David Dorward]

Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950 wrote:

Just wondering about the "new" mark-up standard, now that it is several
years old! Is the handling of XHTML more consistent than the handling of
HTML by different user agents?

No. Served as XHTML a large number of user agents (including Microsoft
Internet Explorer, upto and including the latest beta of version 7)
will not render it. Served as HTML a few browsers will handle <foo />
correctly according to HTML rules ("A foo element followed by a greater
than sign") which is usually less than desirable.

Are there still innumerable hacks that have to be implemented in XHTML in order to
force a page to appear the same way in IE, Gecko, & Opera browser engines?

Those issues are more with the CSS engines then the (X)HTML parsers.

Also, when combining server side includes with XHTML, what are the
appropriate file extensions...

On the WWW file extensions are irrlevelent. The server just needs to be
configured to send the right content-type headers and to examine the
files for includes.

[Andy Dingley]

Adrienne Boswell wrote:

This has been discussed to death.

Is it Thursday already? It's usually Thursdays isn't it, when the
Zombie FAQ That Will Not Die returns.

[Andy Dingley]

On 3 Aug 2006 02:17:59 -0700, "David Dorward" <do*****@gmail.comwrote:

>Served as HTML a few browsers

Examples ? (and more than one please. So far I've only ever seen _one_
example of such a beast mentioned here, and even that was an obscure
emacs add-on)

will handle <foo />
correctly according to HTML rules ("A foo element followed by a greater
than sign") which is usually less than desirable.