Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[David Dorward]

On 14 May 2008, at 05:26, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:

Nikita wrote:



the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.



I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will
not get the result you expect.



Comes back as valid HTML, as I expected.


It usually isn't: http://tinyurl.com/3unkuu

Since  is (in HTML) the same as >, and character data  
(including >) is not allowed in the  element, then the only way  
you could get this to be valid would be to use HTML 4.01 Transitional,  
ommit the optional end tag for the head element and start tag for the  
body element, and make the meta element the last thing in the head  
element (thus causing the trailing greater than sign to be the first  
character of data in the body).


The validator did flag "/>" as warnings which it did not a few years  
back when the example was originally created.


A reaction to the number of people using XHTML syntax in HTML without  
understanding the implications.



But W3C's validator warning messages are overly cautious


Depending on error recovery features (or bugs) in browsers simply  
isn't wise.


--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Dean Edridge]

Dean Matthews wrote:

On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote:


where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain

On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:



and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.



Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)




It's at:



Under profile, select CSS 3

Don't know about Firefox.



I assume we're talking about the Web Developer Tool bar extension for 
Firefox? [1]


If so, it's quite customisable and you can change the validation level 
to CSS3

1) Go to the "options" tab on the developer tool bar
2) From the drop down menu select "Options"
3) From the menu on the left select "Tools"
4) You will then see a list of URLs, under "Application/URL", click the 
one that says:

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warning=0&uri=
5) Then click the "Edit" button, you can then make changes to the URL:
To have CSS3 included in the validation, change:
"css21" to "css3"
I'd also recommend changing:
"warning=0" to "warning=1" , this tells the CSS Validator to also show 
you warnings.

So in the end the URL should look something like this:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css3&warning=1&uri=

Also, while you have the web developer tool bar "options" open:
from the left select "Validation" you'll then see "Validate Local CSS", 
under that, choose the CSS3 option

Click OK and you're done.

Now you can validate pages that contain CSS3 just by going to the 
developer tool bar and selecting Tools => Validate CSS.



[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/60

Cheers,
Dean Edridge


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Nikita wrote:
> I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will
> not get the result you expect.
Comes back as valid HTML, as I expected. The validator did flag "/>" as 
warnings which it did not a few years back when the example was originally 
created. But W3C's validator warning messages are overly cautious - it still 
warns about the use of BOM which was a problem in the 90's.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 10:51 PM
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>  Nikita wrote:
>>  > the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
>>  > wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
>>  Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
>> Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.
> 
> I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
> the result you expect.
> 
> 
>>   Original Message 
>>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>  Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
>>  > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >> Hi Nikita,
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>>  >>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>>  >>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template 
>> written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>>  >>
>>  >>  
>> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
>>  >
>>  > Hi Vlad,
>>  > OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
>>  > valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
>>  > then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
>>  > example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
>>  > between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
>>  > lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
>>  > in HTML.)
>>  >
>>  > The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
>>  > suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
>>  > Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
>>  > list, that seems pretty significant.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  Original Message 
>>  >>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>>  >>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  >>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >>  >> HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  >>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to 
>> generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any 
>> version of HTML as you like.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>>  >>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>>  >>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>>  >>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >>  HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  >>  >>  > get done correctly
>>  >>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  >>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>>  >>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>>  >>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>>  >>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>>  >>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>>  >>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>>  >>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>>  >>  > correctly.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>>  >>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>>  >>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>>  >>  > getting it right most of the time.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>>  >>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>>  >>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>>  >>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > Cheers
>>
>>
  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Nikita The Spider The Spider]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Nikita wrote:
>  > the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
>  > wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
>  Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
> Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.

I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get
the result you expect.


>   Original Message 
>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>  Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
>  > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >> Hi Nikita,
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>  >>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>  >>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template 
> written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>  >>
>  >>  
> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
>  >
>  > Hi Vlad,
>  > OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
>  > valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
>  > then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
>  > example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
>  > between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
>  > lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
>  > in HTML.)
>  >
>  > The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
>  > suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
>  > Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
>  > list, that seems pretty significant.
>  >
>  > Cheers
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >>  Original Message 
>  >>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>  >>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>  >>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >>  >> HTH wrote:
>  >>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>  >>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>  >>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>  >>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to 
> generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any 
> version of HTML as you like.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>  >>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>  >>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>  >>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >>  HTH wrote:
>  >>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>  >>  >>  > get done correctly
>  >>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>  >>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>  >>  >
>  >>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>  >>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>  >>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>  >>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>  >>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>  >>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>  >>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>  >>  > correctly.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>  >>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>  >>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>  >>  > getting it right most of the time.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>  >>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>  >>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>  >>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Cheers
>
>
> >>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>
>  ***
>  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  ***
>
>



-- 
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Nikita wrote:
> the example you provided isn't valid XHTML.
I think you may have misunderstood. The example in this screen shot:
http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif

.. shows how to embed XHTML 1.1 content into an HTML 4.01 Transitional page 
layout. So the result should be valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.

Nikita wrote:
> the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it
> wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard. Even the 
W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>>
>>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written 
>> for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>>
>>  
>> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
> 
> Hi Vlad,
> OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
> valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
> then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
> example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
> between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
> lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
> in HTML.)
> 
> The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
> suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
> Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
> list, that seems pretty significant.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
>>  Original Message 
>>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>>
>>
>> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >> HTH wrote:
>>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>  >>
>>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate 
>> one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of 
>> HTML as you like.
>>  >
>>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  HTH wrote:
>>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  >>  > get done correctly
>>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>>  >
>>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>>  >
>>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>>  > correctly.
>>  >
>>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>>  > getting it right most of the time.
>>  >
>>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers
>>  >
> 
> 
> 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[James Pickering]

>From time to time over the past several years I have served web pages as XHTML 
>1.0 with content (MIME) type text/html to IE Browsers and with content (MIME) 
>type application/xhtml+xml to Browsers that recognize that content type -- via 
>Content Negotiation. 

My current Home Page -- http://jp29.org/ -- is served in this manner. I compose 
the great majority of my pages using HTML 4.01 Markup (a few using ISO-HTML) 
and they are naturally served as text/html.

I actually started using Content Negotiation for XHTML documents as an 
experiment to see how the concept worked in practice.

I currently also employ Content Negotiation for my XHTML+RDFa test page -- 
http://jp29.org/rdfaprimerx.php -- there is no "Appendix C" provision (ala 
XHTML 1.0) for XHTML+RDFa -- if such documents are served as text/html the W3C 
Validator adds the following generic note to the successful validation report 
(quote):

"Warning Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

The document is being served with the text/html Mime Type which is not a 
registered media type for the XHTML + RDFa Document Type. The recommended media 
type for this document is: application/xhtml+xml" . The W3C is currently 
serving some of their XHTML+RDFa documents as Content-Type text/html.

James

[


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[dwain]

thanks for the info.
cheers,
dwain

On 5/13/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote:
>
>
> > where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
> > dwain
> >
> > On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
> > > > w3c css validator.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)
> > >
> >
> >
>
>  It's at:
>
> 
>
>  Under profile, select CSS 3
>
>  Don't know about Firefox.
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
>  List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
dwain alford
"The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression."  Kandinsky


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Dean Matthews]

On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote:


where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain

On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:


and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in  
the

w3c css validator.



Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)




It's at:



Under profile, select CSS 3

Don't know about Firefox.




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Nikita The Spider The Spider]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
>
>  > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
>  > XHTML 1.1-formatted code
>  Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written 
> for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:
>
>  
> http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif

Hi Vlad,
OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't
valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and
then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good
example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch
between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be
lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works
in HTML.)

The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've
suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many
Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this
list, that seems pretty significant.

Cheers



>  Original Message 
>  From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
>
>
> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
>  > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
>  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >> HTH wrote:
>  >>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>  >>
>  >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>  >>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>  >>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>  >>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate 
> one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of 
> HTML as you like.
>  >
>  > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
>  > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
>  > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
>  > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
>  >
>  >
>  >>  HTH wrote:
>  >>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>  >>  > get done correctly
>  >>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>  >>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
>  >
>  > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
>  > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
>  > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
>  > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
>  >
>  > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
>  > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
>  > that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
>  > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
>  > correctly.
>  >
>  > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
>  > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
>  > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
>  > getting it right most of the time.
>  >
>  > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
>  > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
>  > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
>  > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
>  >
>  > Cheers
>  >



-- 
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[dwain]

where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain

On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
>
>
> > and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
> > w3c css validator.
> >
>
>  Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
>  List Guidelines:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  Unsubscribe:
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
dwain alford
"The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression."  Kandinsky


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

Hi Nikita,

> Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
> XHTML 1.1-formatted code
Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written for a 
different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot:

http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com




 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> HTH wrote:
>>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>>
>>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one 
>> copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML 
>> as you like.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
> what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
> talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
> serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?
> 
> 
>>  HTH wrote:
>>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>>  > get done correctly
>>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
> 
> My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
> result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
> indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.
> 
> The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
> preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
> that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
> the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
> correctly.
> 
> It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
> it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
> But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
> getting it right most of the time.
> 
> There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
> on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
> involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
> standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.
> 
> Cheers
> 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Nikita The Spider The Spider]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HTH wrote:
>  >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>
> >text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>  >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>  >you're generating two copies of all of your content
>  Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one 
> copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML 
> as you like.

I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but
what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you
talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or
serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else?


>  HTH wrote:
>  > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
>  > get done correctly
>  At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
>  http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/

My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong
result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and
indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml.

The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain
preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate
that it accept both text/html and  application/xhtml+xml but prefers
the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done
correctly.

It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting
it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml).
But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're
getting it right most of the time.

There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly)
on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation
involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the
standards than me. You might find it interesting reading.

Cheers

-- 
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Thomas Thomassen]

You can still do that with XHTML 1.0 sent as html/text. I've done that 
several times when I've made desktop gadgets to extract data from my site. 
The parsers doesn't care if the page is sent as html/text instead of 
xml/text.


I don't see any point of using XHTML 1.1 unless you use it's modular nature.


- Original Message - 
From: "Vlad Alexander (XStandard)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?


HTH wrote:

...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
you're generating two copies of all of your content
Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one 
copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML 
as you like.


HTH wrote:

Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
get done correctly

At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/

Simon wrote:

Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits?
The benefits are on the content production side. If you author your content 
in XHTML, you can parse it with an off-the-shelf XML parser and make 
modifications to your content en-masse. This gives you control over your 
content.


Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
XStandard XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG Editor



 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-12 8:36 PM

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi,

 Does anyone use XHTML 1.1


Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
not all, were sent with the wrong media type.

http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes


and does it provide any benefits?


Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or
XHTML 1.0 Strict?


 Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
 point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?


One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?

Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done
correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of
one's content.

Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have
to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons
just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who
question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone
XHTML 1.1.

About XHTML and media types:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary

HTH







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Thomas Thomassen]

If you do content negotiation to send html/text and XHTML 1.0 to IE and 
application/xhtml+xml XHTML to anyone else then you're effectivly using 
XHTML 1.0 html/text as you'd never be able to make use of the modular XML 
nature of XHTML 1.1.


- Original Message - 
From: "Nikita The Spider The Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?



On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi,

 Does anyone use XHTML 1.1


Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
not all, were sent with the wrong media type.

http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes


and does it provide any benefits?


Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or
XHTML 1.0 Strict?


 Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
 point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?


One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?

Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done
correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of
one's content.

Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have
to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons
just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who
question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone
XHTML 1.1.

About XHTML and media types:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary

HTH


--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[David Dorward]

On 13 May 2008, at 01:36, Nikita The Spider The Spider wrote:

One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke.


... and IE7 and IE8.

Adding support for XHTML hasn't been a priority for Microsoft  
(presumably because more people are going to benefit from better CSS  
support than from XHTML support).


--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Dean Matthews]

On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:


and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.


Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[dwain]

and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.
dwain


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[XStandard]

HTH wrote:
>...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
>text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
>application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
>you're generating two copies of all of your content
Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one copy 
of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML as you 
like.

HTH wrote:
> Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
> get done correctly
At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/

Simon wrote:
>Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits?
The benefits are on the content production side. If you author your content in 
XHTML, you can parse it with an off-the-shelf XML parser and make modifications 
to your content en-masse. This gives you control over your content.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
XStandard XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG Editor



 Original Message 
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-12 8:36 PM
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>  Does anyone use XHTML 1.1
> 
> Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
> just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
> not all, were sent with the wrong media type.
> 
> http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes
> 
>> and does it provide any benefits?
> 
> Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or
> XHTML 1.0 Strict?
> 
>>  Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
>>  point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?
> 
> One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
> application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
> that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
> application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
> generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
> refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?
> 
> Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done
> correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of
> one's content.
> 
> Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have
> to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons
> just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who
> question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone
> XHTML 1.1.
> 
> About XHTML and media types:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary
> 
> HTH
> 
> 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Andrew McGrath]

> "One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
> application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
> that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
> application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
> generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
> refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?"


Very appealing...unless they're ie7 obviously


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Ben Buchanan]

Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
> point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?


Very very generally, I've found it's less critical which standard you use
than whether your stuff validates in your chosen standard.

Secondly, I see a lot of sites that speak about CSS3 and using parts of that
> now in the browsers that support it.


Basically what you're getting into there is the progressive enhancement
methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement).
Personally I think it's the way to go - give good stuff to the good
browsers, so long as it doesn't mess up the bad ones. That way IE doesn't
hold everything up.

cheers,
Ben

-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[Nikita The Spider The Spider]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  Does anyone use XHTML 1.1

Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
not all, were sent with the wrong media type.

http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes

> and does it provide any benefits?

Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or
XHTML 1.0 Strict?

>  Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
>  point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?

One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?

Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done
correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of
one's content.

Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have
to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons
just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who
question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone
XHTML 1.1.

About XHTML and media types:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary

HTH


-- 
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?

[David Storey]

On 12 May 2008, at 22:42, Simon wrote:


Hi,

Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits? I've  
read up on
what the differences are but I was under the belief IE won't support  
it

without a particular hack.

Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there  
any

point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?


Not really.  There are only a couple of main differences between XHTML  
1 and 1.1.  The first is that it has been redefined in a modular  
fashion.  As a web developer you get no benefit from this.  The second  
difference is that there is a Ruby module (the only new  
functionality).  Ruby is a way of including ruby text relating to the  
regular text.  This is mostly used in Asian languages to explain how  
to pronounce words.  It is only supported by IE, even though XHTML  
isn't supported by IE.



Secondly, I see a lot of sites that speak about CSS3 and using parts  
of that

now in the browsers that support it.

I get along fine with CSS 2 but haven't really adopted or tried any  
of the
newer more advanced CSS3 techniques. I haven't really had to. Is it  
also
worth learning this now or can I expect IE to hold back this  
standard for a

long time yet?


Depends on what you want to do.  Media Queries are useful for  
optimising form mobile for example.  There are a lot of nice new CSS3  
selectors, supported by Opera and Safari (and to some extent Firefox),  
but they are not supported by IE.  text-shadow is something I use  
quite a bit as it degrades gracefully in browsers that don't support  
it (IE and Firefox both don't), thus is unless you use a text colour  
the same as the background colour.  box-shadow and border-radius are  
other properties that fallback nicely when not supported.


Web fonts look interesting, but it may be hampered by needing to use  
free fonts that are allowed to be freely distributed.


Some CSS3 is already used quite often in websites, such as opacity  
(supported by all mainstream browsers except IE)  Some CSS3 are  
standardisation's of IE only propertis, such as overflow-x and  
overflow-y, which have widespread support now.



Thanks for your opinions

Simon



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***