Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Dean; Then there is the whole Web Applications trend. Again, HTML and XHTML are pretty much the same in functionality here, but if I'm using an application on the Web then I want to make sure it is well-formed and well-structured. I don't want a typo by a web developer (such as leaving off an end t

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Geoff; But still, strictly speaking, an XML based document is bound to be more semantically correct because it is well formed. Why? Are the semantics of the following deferent? Ice cream Sprinkles ... Ice cream Sprinkles "SGML and XML are metalanguage faciliti

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Geoff Deering wrote: I am talking about CSS applied to HTML and the rendering of the CSS as applied to the parsing of the document. But still, strictly speaking, an XML based document is bound to be more semantically correct because it is well formed. This means that the CSS can be applied withou

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

What Dean says so well here are also the reasons I prefer XML defined markup, and I don't think it negates the arguments that others have been expressing here for HTML. I think each on of them have valid points. But it seems to me that there are more reasons to use an XML based vocabulary than ha

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Paul Connolley wrote: > > Geoff Deering wrote: > > > I am talking about CSS applied to HTML and the rendering of the CSS as > > applied to the parsing of the document. But still, strictly speaking, > > an > > XML based document is bound to be more semantically correct because it > > is > > w

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Geoff Deering wrote: I am talking about CSS applied to HTML and the rendering of the CSS as applied to the parsing of the document. But still, strictly speaking, an XML based document is bound to be more semantically correct because it is well formed. This means that the CSS can be applied with

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

On 7 Oct 2004, at 02:09, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Hi Kim, Ian Hickson is _not_ saying XHTML is harmful, he is saying that serving up XHTML with the wrong MIME type is bad. That's right. It's probably not the best title for the document, but my feeling is that people using the "... conside

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

.shtml Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: "Tom Livingston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful? > Please forgive any ignorance on my part... >

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Chris Bentley wrote: > > Are there any parsers out there you explicitly trust to get it right > > every > > time? I don't. > I know of one, http://validator.w3.org/. Are you say though that User > Agents are generally better/fast at parsing/rendering valid XHTML than > they are valid HTML? No, t

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Please forgive any ignorance on my part... So I can copy the guts of an XHTML document in all it's splendor with s et all and paste it into an HTML document and all is dandy? Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist mlinc.com Get FireFox > http://spreadfirefox

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Are there any parsers out there you explicitly trust to get it right every time? I don't. I know of one, http://validator.w3.org/. Are you say though that User Agents are generally better/fast at parsing/rendering valid XHTML than they are valid HTML? They may well do, but they are still gues

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Title: RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful? Lachlan wrote: >> On use of validation: valid code is not difficult. & >> Pete, I'm assuming from your comments that you aim for valid code by changing institutional practices rather than programmatically? Agreed on both.

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

> > On 07/10/2004, at 10:07 AM, Geoff Deering wrote: > > The reason being that if you are not closing all your tags it > > can become a guessing game for the parser where the CSS declaration > > may end > > in various parts of the document. > > > > It always strikes me that when using HTML4 you are

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Manuel González Noriega wrote: You learn that you should validate anything before making it live (just like you'd spell-check and proofread anything before going to publication in the print world, for instance). ;) Hmmm... I started writing a reply a few hours ago and events overtook me. Still,

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

On 07/10/2004, at 10:07 AM, Geoff Deering wrote: The reason being that if you are not closing all your tags it can become a guessing game for the parser where the CSS declaration may end in various parts of the document. It always strikes me that when using HTML4 you are at the mercy of the arbit

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

On 07/10/2004, at 9:45 AM, Peter Firminger wrote: (and it's debateable whether HTML 3.2 is either... By "version" do they mean the language or the subset? HTML 3.2 is the latest version of HTML 3) I suspect that they mean HTML4. From the HTML 4 rec "W3C recommends that authors produce HTML 4 docu

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

I think there are valid arguments for both sides of this. This is also where I agree with the approach of the Apache/Cocoon advocates in that you serve up the solution which be suits the user agent. As standards developers we are working in an imperfect world and it's what frustrates us all. Wha

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

>... as for appropriate, that's a judgement call >based on personal preference. mm.. he also did add: "Note that I personally think it is unfortunate that the WAI WCAG guidelines mandate this. (I appreciate that the word 'appropriate' could be interpreted as a get-out - but I would argue that XHTM

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Kim wrote: >> Now I would like to know what your arguments would be for using xhtml.Hi everyone,have heard and understand all the good responses on this question. As usual the decision can vary depending on your needs.I'd like to offer one reason why it has been a good decision for us here a

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Hmmm... > but it was also pointed out > > > Note that a strict interpretation of the WAI WCAG 1.0 guidelines would > indicate that you MUST use XHTML 1.0 if you intent to comply > with WAI AA > guidelines. See Um, no. Not MUST at all. This is misinterp

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

"Every modern browser, including Mozilla and Safari, is much worse at XHTML than at HTML. People tend to foolishly gloss over the transition from one to the other, thinking that code you write for one will “just work” when you switch to XHTML. That simply isn’t true. If you look at XHTML in bot

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

there were a couple of threads about this issue at WEB4LIB recently. subject = "Moving from HTML4.01 to XML" subject = "to X or not to X" the consensus was generally mixed, as it is here. one of my gurus said: Moving from any flavor of HTML to the corresponding flavor of XHTML is a pretty mino

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

One that I know, but there may be more: in HTML, body is the size of the entire viewport, even if it's empty. In XHTML, it's just like any other block level elements and takes on the dimensions of its content (and if you float everything in the body, it effectively is 0 pixels high). If you def

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Can anyone explain what this means in that article? * A CSS stylesheet written for an HTML4 document is interpreted slightly differently in an XHTML context (e.g. the element is not magical in XHTML In what ways might be "magical"? --

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

At 15:53 on Wednesday, 06 Oct 2004, Kim Kruse wrote: Now I would like to know what your arguments would be for using xhtml. Not that I can't think for myself... but I'm in doubt if I'm going in the right direction. I would really like to hear your opinions on this matter. I timely post, just

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Manuel González Noriega wrote: Often, markup errors, like natural language errors, are most likely typos than anything else. Therefore, i don't really learn anything from them You learn that you should validate anything before making it live (just like you'd spell-check

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Shane Helm wrote: I have also become a better and cleaner coder since I switched to XHTML & CSS. Table-less layout rules! But, to clarify: there's nothing, absolutely nothing at all, stopping you from going all CSS-driven, table-less, separation of content and presentation, etc in HTML 4 - just

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Sorry! I meant "You couldn't have stated your claims better." Not "could've of". Shane On Oct 6, 2004, at 1:46 PM, Shane Helm wrote: Here here! You could've of stated your claims better. My choice is XHTML for the exact same reasons. I have also become a better and cleaner coder since I sw

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Shane Helm wrote: All code of every web page should be validated. Any errors need to be corrected. If your typo is in a tag, then it could produce undesirable results. We should all make sure our code on every web page we create has no errors, whether simple typos or forgotten closing tags; wh

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Here here! You could've of stated your claims better. My choice is XHTML for the exact same reasons. I have also become a better and cleaner coder since I switched to XHTML & CSS. Table-less layout rules! Best, Shane Helm On Oct 6, 2004, at 1:34 PM, Michael Kear wrote: -Original Message--

RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

-Original Message- Shane Helm - he say: <<>>> Quite so. I'm ashamed to say I built several web sites without validating anything. I worked on the basis that if it looked ok in IE and perhaps Netscape, and didn't look too bad in the mac we had at the next desk, that was ok. Anyone el

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Manuel González Noriega wrote: Often, markup errors, like natural language errors, are most likely typos than anything else. Therefore, i don't really learn anything from them You learn that you should validate anything before making it live (just like you'd spell-check and proofread anything be

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

All code of every web page should be validated. Any errors need to be corrected. If your typo is in a tag, then it could produce undesirable results. We should all make sure our code on every web page we create has no errors, whether simple typos or forgotten closing tags; whether we use HTML

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Clayton Lengel-Zigich wrote: Again, higly subjective: it's neat for marchine-parsing but IMHO it's overkill to learn that you've made a teenyweeny mistake in your blog post markup by watching the bloody thing crash before your eyes Yet with each crash and burn of your blog and each little mist

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

> Again, higly subjective: it's neat for marchine-parsing but IMHO it's > overkill to learn that you've made a teenyweeny mistake in your blog > post markup by watching the bloody thing crash before your eyes Yet with each crash and burn of your blog and each little mistake you fix the more and mo

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Chris Hughes wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manuel González Noriega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes XHTML problems: - Zero-tolerance for markup errors Surely that is a benefit rather than a problem? Again, higly subjective: it's neat for marchine-parsing but IMHO it's overkill to learn that

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manuel González Noriega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes XHTML problems: - Zero-tolerance for markup errors Surely that is a benefit rather than a problem? -- Chris Hughes http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk ** The discussion

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Hi Kim, Ian Hickson is _not_ saying XHTML is harmful, he is saying that serving up XHTML with the wrong MIME type is bad. At an academic level, he has a point. On a practical level, this does not concern most of us because all current (modern) user agents (browsers, crawlers, gadgets, etc) will

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

Kim Kruse wrote: Hi, First of all... I'm sorry if this is off topic. I've been telling people (the few who asked me and through my website) to use (valid) xhtml because it a W3C recommendation, it's device independent, (valid) xhtml can be processed by an XML parser, better accessibility, less