Jump to content

HTML XHTML? Any difference?


cs.punk

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

more robust?  Do you even know what the means?  Not really.  It is a waste of time is what it is.  XHTML and HTML are the same.  If some one wants to use a div or a table makes no difference.  The only difference is if the browser is going to make it look the way you like.  This should be the only use for XHTML if any, but most browsers nowadays without XHTML do this fine.  If some one is using an old browser who cares.  It is probably an old lady who doesn't care what your site looks like.

 

Has anyone noticed that most of the most popular websites on the net don't give a damn about XHTML standards?  YouTube for example doesn't even give you valid code to embed on its site.

 

Stop wasting time on pointless things.  Do something really innovative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XHTML and HTML are the same.

 

Have you read the topic? I mean all the posts from page 1 to page 7. Have you read the W3C specifications?

 

If some one is using an old browser who cares.

 

IE8 is an old browser. It doesn't support XHTML at all. Of course you would have known that if you read the topic.

 

Stop wasting time on pointless things.

 

Who is wasting their time? If you think this topic is a waste of time, then why are you participating in it? My interest in these kind of things is academic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XHTML and HTML are the same.

 

Have you read the topic? I mean all the posts from page 1 to page 7. Have you read the W3C specifications?

 

If some one is using an old browser who cares.

 

IE8 is an old browser. It doesn't support XHTML at all. Of course you would have known that if you read the topic.

 

Stop wasting time on pointless things.

 

Who is wasting their time? If you think this topic is a waste of time, then why are you participating in it? My interest in these kind of things is academic.

 

Tough crowd.  I can see you put some thought into my post.  :D  What ever man keep wasting your time on HTML standards then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure thing. If you can't attack the man's arguments, go for the man instead. Sounds like a viable rhetorical strategy.

 

You've dished out a few tasty latin argumentative terms in your earlier posts but why not here?: 'argumentum ad hominem'. Add that one to your list Mchl.  ;D

 

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the great explanations. I'll be sticking with HTML 4.0 though I'll have to suffer SMF's insistence on the use of XHTML for their 2.0.  :-[

 

I feel totally duped by the lads at W3 schools. Candidly, they got me all hyped up. I was probably two weeks away from buying a geeky XHTML t-shirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel totally duped by the lads at W3 schools.

 

I'm not sure the w3schools site is very well maintained when it comes to there tutorials / articles.

 

Yeah, it seems that way. Furthermore it was more of a double dupe. I thought that they were the offical W3C lads.

 

Good god, those t-shirts I mentioned actually exist:

 

xhtml_tshirt-p235670279927194727t58d_210.jpg

 

xhtml_xhtml_tshirt-p235424671923209541y0db_400.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you opt for HTML rather than XHTML then you miss out on being able to declare additional namespaces to allow embedding things like SVG or MathML. However, this is only possible in the first place if you were serving your XHTML pages with the content-type application/xhtml+xml, which Internet Explorer doesn't support. If you were serving them like text/html then they were de jure HTML files and they were regarded as HTML files by the browsers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you opt for HTML rather than XHTML then you miss out on being able to declare additional namespaces to allow embedding things like SVG or MathML. However, this is only possible in the first place if you were serving your XHTML pages with the content-type application/xhtml+xml, which Internet Explorer doesn't support. If you were serving them like text/html then they were de jure HTML files and they were regarded as HTML files by the browsers.

 

So, if I don't need to use XML applications or graphics then I don't really require XHTML.

 

Two more questions seeing as how I don't want to leave this topic with any doubt in my mind:

 

[*]I like how rigorous XHTML is. If I continue to use it's guidelines in HTML such as the closing of empty elements won't it effect my validation? Is there anything else besides the closed empty elements that will conflict with validation?

 

[*]What coding style is most likely to become deprecated first? HTML's, XHTML's, both or neither?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how rigorous XHTML is. If I continue to use it's guidelines in HTML such as the closing of empty elements won't it effect my validation? Is there anything else besides the closed empty elements that will conflict with validation?

 

Well, seeing as HTML is a subset of SGML and not XML, there is no such thing as an unclosed element. It's technically incorrect doing things like <br /> in HTML. That's just not how the language works.

 

I'm not really sure I understand the argument though. It's like saying PHP's foreach syntax is incorrect just because it's different in Java. Two different languages, two different syntaxes.

 

What coding style is most likely to become deprecated first? HTML's, XHTML's, both or neither?

 

Hopefully you'll have gathered from this topic that the difference is not just a matter of "style".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully you'll have gathered from this topic that the difference is not just a matter of "style".

 

You're right, I have. It's a matter of function. Not style.

 

I've been wading through murky waters on this for the past evening or two though. XHTML is being pitched as a correct style of HTML coding rather than as a correct style of html coding for a specific subset of functions for which you might not have a need. Even W3schools seem to be ambiguously advocating it this way or at the very least that seems to be a consensus amongst coders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. There is nothing at the moment that sets XHTML as better than HTML if you are serving the document as text/html. So if you are serving the document as text/html, it becomes purely a matter of style. If you want to use an HTML doctype, use an HTML doctype. If you want to use an XHTML doctype, use an XHTML doctype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. There is nothing at the moment that sets XHTML as better than HTML if you are serving the document as text/html. So if you are serving the document as text/html, it becomes purely a matter of style. If you want to use an HTML doctype, use an HTML doctype. If you want to use an XHTML doctype, use an XHTML doctype.

 

It isn't that.  It is the fact that people don't want to follow some stupid religion of HTML standards.  Make HTML work and then make the browsers work.  At this point leave it alone.  I think that should do the trick.  W3C Schools will keep on making "new" changes because if it doesn't it will loose its "authority".  Do you understand this?  Are there any other HTML standards being created?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W3C Schools != W3C 

 

W3C's authority doesn't come from the fact it introduces any changes. It comes from the organisations that form it.

 

And the ''new' changes' are not introduced just for the sake of it. They're introduced because industry demands them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.