Re: [WSG] HTML 4.01 versus XHTML 1.0
This topic was discussed last month, with good results. http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg%40webstandardsgroup.org/msg17988.html On Jul 1, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Iain wrote: If I were to write a webpage in XHTML of any flavour but also made the effort to serve it with the correct MIME-type to browsers which support it, that would work fine, but the benefits would be debatable. If I had javascripts within those pages and the pages were served as XML, some methods that work when they are served as plain old HTML would not work in an XML document. The counter argument, over which you are free to decide, goes like this: 1. Serving two MIME types is likely not worth the cost, since there is likely few XML abilities you would use in today's browser market. 2. Properly coded, XHTML served as text/html does not break in today's browsers. There are valid arguments that XHTML does not make *valid* HTML, but XHTML does not break because today's browsers do not fully implement HTML. Being that HTML is dead, they are unlikely to. 3. Your site is likely to exist in the future to some extent, and at some time you might need to port your current pages into a future format; this format is likely to be XML-based. 4. Coding as XHTML today does nothing for your site today (unless you serve two MIME-types, in which case it increases your work), but it may significantly reduce your effort to port it to tomorrow's format. Others argue that a port is a port, and cleaning the XHTML so that you can use XSLT to manage the port is little different than cleaning your HTML and using a Perl script to port the pages over. I'm a wiz a Perl and would have no problem, but I sorta hope I'm running the company when it comes time for porting, and the guys that port my code are going to know XSLT -- so I'm writing XHTML today for them, not for me. Also, I expect the odd errors that creep into XHTML are easier to clean than the odd errors and coding variances that crop up in HTML. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] HTML 4.01 versus XHTML 1.0
Olá a todos, I’ve tried to make my mind on my own on this subject, but I must confess I’m a bit confused… I’m talking about XHTML 1.0 served as text/html, as I have no use for xml yet… Should I prefer it to HTML 4.01? Why? On one hand I have the recommendations of: * The W3C – In their note “XHTML Media Types”( http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/), they say: “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.” – which doesn’t configure a recommendation for using XHTML in place of HTML, as Mark Pilgrim stresses. * Richard Ishida in his enlightening W3C tutorial: “We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible” (http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/en/all.html#Slide0010) * Jeffrey Zeldman in his book / almost bible “Designing with web standards”: “Top 10 reasons to Convert to XHTML”; “1- XHMTL is the current markup standard, replacing HTML 4.”; “3- XHTML is more consistent than HTML (…)”; “6- New browsers love XHTML (…)”; etc… “Top 5 reasons not to switch to XHMTL”; “1- you get paid by the hour.”, etc… * most of you that, by your practice and the URLs you have posted, have shown to prefer XHTML (are you serving it as XML too / using any kind of content negotiation? Am I missing something?) On the other hand I have: * The Web Standards Project – in its article “WaSP asks the W3C” (http://www.webstandards.org/learn/askw3c/sep2003.html) they explicitly recommend serving HTML as text/html and XHTML as application/xhtml+xml, unless using some kind of content negotiation by the server. Text/html is considered an “alternate mime type” for XHTML 1.0., but is not explicitly recommended even if we follow the backward compatibility guidelines (appendix C of XHTML 1.0 W3C recommendation). * Ian Hickson text “Sending XHTML as text/html considered harmful” (http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml), where he specifically defends that “RFC 2854 spec refers to a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01. There is no such thing. Documents that follow the guidelines in appendix C are not valid HTML 4.01 documents.” * Mark Pilgrims’ article “The Road to XHTML 2.0: MIME Types” (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html). He talks about “XHTML's Dirty Little Secret” and says that “browsers aren't actually treating your XHTML as XML. Your validated, correctly DOCTYPE'd, completely standards compliant XHTML markup is being treated as if it were still HTML with a few weird slashes in places they don't belong”… * The new book “DHTML Utopia: Modern Web Design using JavaScript DOM”, where Stuart Langridge echoes the opinions of Pilgrim and Hickson, strongly defending the use of HTML 4.0.1: “In short, using XHTML right now provides very little in the way of benefits, but brings with it a fair few extra complications. HTML 4.01 Strict is just as “valid” as XHTML—XHTML did not replace HTML but sits alongside it.” So, what are your opinions? Can someone shed some light on this subject? Where does the Web Standards Group stand about it, if at all? And the JavaScript developers among you… do you have any bad experiences to tell about the use of XHTML 1.0 in place of HTML 4.01 strict? Bom fim de semana! Roberto ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HTML 4.01 versus XHTML 1.0
Hi, I can fully admit I wrote pages in XHTML in a vain effort to be bleeding edge. I must say that, having read Stuart Langridge's DHTML UTopia and its convincing argument about using HTML 4.01, I am coming round to the idea that there are currently no genuine advantages to using XHTML. I shall explain. If I were to write a webpage in XHTML of any flavour but also made the effort to serve it with the correct MIME-type to browsers which support it, that would work fine, but the benefits would be debatable. If I had javascripts within those pages and the pages were served as XML, some methods that work when they are served as plain old HTML would not work in an XML document. So, for the gain of nil benefits, I would lose some compatibility. Not a fair trade. Until you can assuredly say that all browsers will accept the same standards, serving documents as XML is a nice idea but currently unfeasible. HTML 4.01 will always be a standard and, as such, any pages written to that standard will always work. No doubt many better-informed people will shoot me down, but that's just the way I see it at the moment. Cheers, Iain Roberto Gorjão wrote: Olá a todos, I’ve tried to make my mind on my own on this subject, but I must confess I’m a bit confused… I’m talking about XHTML 1.0 served as text/html, as I have no use for xml yet… Should I prefer it to HTML 4.01? Why? On one hand I have the recommendations of: * The W3C – In their note “XHTML Media Types”( http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/), they say: “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.” – which doesn’t configure a recommendation for using XHTML in place of HTML, as Mark Pilgrim stresses. * Richard Ishida in his enlightening W3C tutorial: “We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible” (http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/en/all.html#Slide0010) * Jeffrey Zeldman in his book / almost bible “Designing with web standards”: “Top 10 reasons to Convert to XHTML”; “1- XHMTL is the current markup standard, replacing HTML 4.”; “3- XHTML is more consistent than HTML (…)”; “6- New browsers love XHTML (…)”; etc… “Top 5 reasons not to switch to XHMTL”; “1- you get paid by the hour.”, etc… * most of you that, by your practice and the URLs you have posted, have shown to prefer XHTML (are you serving it as XML too / using any kind of content negotiation? Am I missing something?) On the other hand I have: * The Web Standards Project – in its article “WaSP asks the W3C” (http://www.webstandards.org/learn/askw3c/sep2003.html) they explicitly recommend serving HTML as text/html and XHTML as application/xhtml+xml, unless using some kind of content negotiation by the server. Text/html is considered an “alternate mime type” for XHTML 1.0., but is not explicitly recommended even if we follow the backward compatibility guidelines (appendix C of XHTML 1.0 W3C recommendation). * Ian Hickson text “Sending XHTML as text/html considered harmful” (http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml), where he specifically defends that “RFC 2854 spec refers to a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01. There is no such thing. Documents that follow the guidelines in appendix C are not valid HTML 4.01 documents.” * Mark Pilgrims’ article “The Road to XHTML 2.0: MIME Types” (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html). He talks about “XHTML's Dirty Little Secret” and says that “browsers aren't actually treating your XHTML as XML. Your validated, correctly DOCTYPE'd, completely standards compliant XHTML markup is being treated as if it were still HTML with a few weird slashes in places they don't belong”… * The new book “DHTML Utopia: Modern Web Design using JavaScript DOM”, where Stuart Langridge echoes the opinions of Pilgrim and Hickson, strongly defending the use of HTML 4.0.1: “In short, using XHTML right now provides very little in the way of benefits, but brings with it a fair few extra complications. HTML 4.01 Strict is just as “valid” as XHTML—XHTML did not replace HTML but sits alongside it.” So, what are your opinions? Can someone shed some light on this subject? Where does the Web Standards Group stand about it, if at all? And the JavaScript developers among you… do you have any bad experiences to tell about the use of XHTML 1.0 in place of HTML 4.01 strict? Bom fim de semana! Roberto ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
