Are you XHTML compliant?

pohopo

I just made a mental decision to start coding using the XHTML standard. I was reading the changes and I really like how the name attribute is going away!

So anyone else make the jump? It is not really all that much in extra coding and I like the improved logic of it all.

Jason_Batten

or is the question!

looks like it means: line break here, no wait a second scrap that idea

halojoy

XHTML
so,
what is the major differences when writing XHTML standard
compared to HTML

you can list some?

bpat1434

It's the next version.... is that good enough? Kind of like coding for PHP 5 now... knowing that PHP 4 is on the way out.

XHTML is a stricter and cleaner version of HTML.

The Most Important Differences:

* XHTML elements must be properly nested
* XHTML documents must be well-formed
* Tag names must be in lowercase
* All XHTML elements must be closed

Today's market consists of different browser technologies, some browsers run Internet on computers, and some browsers run Internet on mobile phones and hand helds. The last-mentioned do not have the resources or power to interpret a "bad" markup language.

Therefore - by combining HTML and XML, and their strengths, we got a markup language that is useful now and in the future - XHTML.

But before I plagarize the entire site... just go to www.w3schools.com and read up on the XHTML information.... the first like 4 pages are why xhtml, html vs xhtml, and where it comes from.

Honestly: Any standarsd website is a good site. It's the easiest way to ensure that your site looks as it should on almost every browser 😉

phpshift

I am confused about the name attribute going away, as it is needed in order to identify form fields with PHP.

bpat1434

I guess that the id will work just like name did.....

The id Attribute Replaces The name Attribute

Which would be a good guess....

phpshift

Well, I've tried using ID to catch form input, but it doesn't work. Do you have to have one of the DTD header things that xhtml uses in order for it to catch it?

bpat1434

Have no idea... but it's not valid XHTML if there's no DTD.... so I guess yes!!

Of course, HTML is still there, and XHTML isn't completly replacing HTML now... so the name attribute, although deprecated, is still "valid".

phpshift

Yes, but valid or not for HTML or XHTML, will the change to XHTML and the deprecation of the name attribute effect PHP's form processing?

bpat1434

Yes, but I think PHP will catch this in the next version. But obviously we have nothing to worry about.... HTML 3.0 is still in use in some web pages.....

phpshift

I think they should just leave the name attribute alone. It's not causing any trouble, but taking it out will. Besides, some hosts don't update PHP as often as they should. Any members of that host would have to wait until the new ersion of PHP was installed. Until then, their forms might be completely useless.

Weedpacket

No, this has been discussed before and is the result of a misinterpretation of the standard. The name attribute for form fields is not going away (just look at the XHTML 1 Strict DTD if you don't believe me).

shonuff

Weedpacket's right, the name attribute is perfectly valid for forms. The name attribute that is deprecated is the name attribute used on elements other than form controls. For instance, links...

This:

<a href="#Link">Link to some point on the page</a>
<a [COLOR=Red]name="Link"[/COLOR]>This is the Link</a>

According to XHTML 1.0 Strict should be:

<a href="#Link">Link to some point on the page</a>
<a [COLOR=Red]id="Link"[/COLOR]>This is the Link</a>

Using the name attribute on form controls is still valid even in XHTML Strict.

pohopo

My mistake. I misread the article which I will paste below

HTML 4 defined the name attribute for the elements a, applet, form, frame, iframe, img, and map. HTML 4 also introduced the id attribute. Both of these attributes are designed to be used as fragment identifiers.

In XML, fragment identifiers are of type ID, and there can only be a single attribute of type ID per element. Therefore, in XHTML 1.0 the id attribute is defined to be of type ID. In order to ensure that XHTML 1.0 documents are well-structured XML documents, XHTML 1.0 documents MUST use the id attribute when defining fragment identifiers on the elements listed above. See the HTML Compatibility Guidelines for information on ensuring such anchors are backward compatible when serving XHTML documents as media type text/html.

Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is formally deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML.

Name is still with us. Though I still think their should just be one attribute to identify a tag.

Weedpacket

pohopo wrote:
Name is still with us. Though I still think their should just be one attribute to identify a tag.

(Assuming that by "tag" you mean "element".) How would you identify radio buttons? It makes perfect sense to have one attribute to name a form field, and a different attribute to identify an XHTML element.

pohopo

Weedpacket wrote:
(Assuming that by "tag" you mean "element".) How would you identify radio buttons? It makes perfect sense to have one attribute to name a form field, and a different attribute to identify an XHTML element.

Okay, After some googling to try to prove my point I have come to the conclusion that I am wrong and weedpacket is right. In my own, sometimes twisted, brain the name attribute was more then it was in real life.

Thanks for the clarification!

halojoy

pohopo wrote:
I just made a mental decision to start coding using the XHTML standard. I was reading the changes and I really like how the name attribute is going away!

So anyone else make the jump? It is not really all that much in extra coding and I like the improved logic of it all.

I am writing a PHP CMS Application now.
I wanted to have Valid CSS and Valid HTML 4.01.
And so I made it VALID.

It is not very difficult, if you use the Errors and Comments
at
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ and http://validator.w3.org/

Just to see how a XHTML 1.0 check would turn out, I ran a test.
There were many errors, but like 90% were:   tag.
Looks like <img> and should be <img /> and 
and same goes for META tags in head.

Now I have corrected my CMS Script to be: Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

You can find DEMO here: http://okay.mine.nu/pub2/cmsdemo/
Remember, my script is Under Construction.
I will be adding the ADMIN with page editor now.

🙂

Shrike

In my opinion XHTML has become a fashionable thing to do without any real reason behind it. Alot of the time I see XHTML documents which could be written more easily (and validated) in HTML transitional. I've not often seen XHTML used for it's intended purpose - that is with an eXtended element list, or for delivery to different devices. I just can't see the point of writing XHTML documents which look and work just like HTML documents. XHTML certainly is a superior language which seems to be misused.

madwormer2

I suppose some people are seeing it as something that if they do it now, they won't have to go back and re-do it in the future.

But hey, I do it coz the X makes it sound that much cooler!

Apparently they're also teaching XHTML in schools, instead of HTML. Those are the schools that teach that stuff. Damned boarding school. Just 'coz ya Daddy's rich :rolleyes:

Elizabeth

pohopo wrote:
...I have come to the conclusion that I am wrong and weedpacket is right.

Don't feel bad, pohopo, I came to that conclusion (about myself, not you) a long time ago. 🙂