Xhtml 1.0

procoder

I been checking out XHTML

it just looks like the next new version of html.

Before I switch all my site, does anyone know which browsers dont support it, or a reason why not to switch?

Weedpacket

XHTML is stricter than HTML4 (differences are here); it's designed to be compatible with HTML clients. The W3C says "It is a reformulation of the three HTML 4 document types as applications of XML 1.0 [XML]. It is intended to be used as a language for content that is both XML-conforming and, if some simple guidelines are followed, operates in HTML 4 conforming user agents."

No reason not to switch.

procoder

Weedpacket, perhaps you can shine some light on me.

Whats the difference from strict dtd and transitional

Weedpacket

Oh, you don't need me:
XHTML1.0 Strict sez:

Extensible HTML version 1.0 Strict DTD

   This is the same as HTML 4 Strict except for
   changes due to the differences between XML and SGML.

XHTML1.1 Transitional sez:

Extensible HTML version 1.0 Transitional DTD

   This is the same as HTML 4 Transitional except for
   changes due to the differences between XML and SGML.

Therefore, looking up the HTML4 specification...

HTML4 Strict sez:

This is HTML 4.01 Strict DTD, which excludes the presentation 
attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out as 
support for style sheets matures.

HTML4 Transitional sez:

This is the HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD, which includes
presentation attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out
as support for style sheets matures.

Moonglobe

once you get around to going XHTML 1.0 Strict or even 1.1 compliant, you'll thank yourself. you sites are much easier to deal with, and you can still use CSS to get your formatting. You can even send text/html as the document type, because its usually compatible with HTML 4 compliant User Agents. Also XHTML 2.0 is a working draft.... quite cool🆒

procoder

So i see strict is the wiser but harder choice to go with.

Strict is being better prepared for the feature

transitional is being prepared but still some of the outdated stuff

thx guys

drawmack

I do everything in xhtml1.0 strict. my reasoning is that it'll be easier to upgrade them to 2.0 if the damn dtd every comes out.

xhtml has less browser dependencies then html 4.0 and this link is your friend:http://validator.w3.org/

Moonglobe

if you're already doing 1.0 Strict, why not do 1.1?

drawmack

does w3c have the dtd for that up?

Moonglobe

yup, since 2001 :p

elToro

if you're already doing 1.0 Strict, why not do 1.1?

XHTML 1.0 can be served as text/html and still be considered valid. Not so with XHTML 1.1 -- it has to be application/xhtml+xml or application/xml.

Before I switch all my site, does anyone know which browsers dont support it, or a reason why not to switch?

If your stuff already validates as HTML 4, there's no reason not to switch, and you won't break support in any browsers if you follow the backwards compatibility guidelines.

If your stuff doesn't currently validate as HTML 4, the only real disadvantage is that it will take some time (how much depends on just how messy your current markup is) and you might have to ditch some proprietary markup (which might--might--mean giving up some features in some browsers).

Moonglobe

Originally posted by elToro
XHTML 1.0 can be served as text/html and still be considered valid. Not so with XHTML 1.1 -- it has to be application/xhtml+xml or application/xml.

not true........ even the xhtml 2 working draft states that text/html may be used.

[edit]To quote from [XHTMLMIME]:

In summary, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents, and the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents.

so while it isnt totally endorsed, it isnt forbidden either.

note: XHTMLMIME was published in 2002, after XHTML 1.1[/edit]

elToro

See http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ for full details. It is true that it says "should not" as opposed to "must not," but it does not say "may," as it does for XHTML 1.0 (HTML compatible).

I maintain my position that the difference in media type recommendations is the main reason to stick with XHTML 1.0 instead of XHTML 1.1. You "should not," according to the W3C, serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html, but you "may" server XHTML 1.0 as text/html. (Quotation marks indicate quotations from the previously mentioned URL.)

[edit]
I point out that document to the person asking the question, not to you, Moonglobe, as you've obviously read the same documents I have.
[/edit]

Moonglobe

see above post, as i use the same argument to disagree.

and what's wrong with application/xhtml+xml? one thing: IE.:mad:

i know for a fact that Firebird accepts it, an so so does mozilla. it might just be me but IE tries to download it. probably a default binding to application/*. :mad:

Merve

I use Transitional, but that's because I'm a lazy-ass.

jayant

XHTML 1.0 is more or less same as HTML 4,
while XHTML 1.1 is more towards XML

you can see XHTML 1.0 as intermediate b/w html4 and xhtml1.1 designed so that move to xhtml1.1 is smooth.

if any page currently valid as html 4, then with few minor changes it will validate as xhtml ~~1.1~~ 1.0