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 at Fairfax Digital (or potentially the better known smh.com.au [1] & theage.com.au sites).
When we proposed and pushed the idea of using css for layouts, it was (and still is) a radical change for many parts of the business and the way the sites are developed. Many hands work on our sites. We still run into lots of problems with markup errors due to that amount of content that comes from different areas/hands. The fact is we have many people within the organisation that are still coding ala 1998 style. missing </p> tags, or no <p> tags, no headings, unclosed tags, lists using <br>'s, unencoded entities, etc etc. probably every sin in the book.
When we started spreading the message of CSS and standards internally we knew that if it succeeded it would take a long time & then stick for a long time. We have loooots of sites that often don't get a code revamp for years. Hence we wanted a plan that had some legs.
The reason we chose xHTML had a lot to do with speading the message that xHTML stands for. ie: tidy, lean, valid code etc. yeah i know its a lot more than that but for these people, thats the point that concerns them. We needed to get people realising that its important to close your tags, its important to make your tags lower case, its important to use a <hx> tag for a heading. (yeah its probably a heading 'element', not tag, but you know what i mean ;-)
So when we 'sold' the CSS concept internally, we 'sold' xHTML along with it, and everything that goes along with it to focus attention on better coding practices.
So yeah, that may sound crazy for some, but its a real world situation for us, and its something that has seen massive benefits. Its working. The xHTML doctype and standards mode (as opposed to quirks mode) is helping to focus attention internally on the need for better markup. We aint perfect, but its a big organisation and these things take time. Product managers (who have no idea what CSS even stands for) now want to know if their new design will use xHTML and sprites. funny, but true.
I'm glad we jumped in though and am comfortable with our stance on the subject. If we waited till our sites were valid before doing anything, I fear we would never even get into the game.
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 at Fairfax Digital (or potentially the better known smh.com.au [1] & theage.com.au sites).
When we proposed and pushed the idea of using css for layouts, it was (and still is) a radical change for many parts of the business and the way the sites are developed. Many hands work on our sites. We still run into lots of problems with markup errors due to that amount of content that comes from different areas/hands. The fact is we have many people within the organisation that are still coding ala 1998 style. missing </p> tags, or no <p> tags, no headings, unclosed tags, lists using <br>'s, unencoded entities, etc etc. probably every sin in the book.
When we started spreading the message of CSS and standards internally we knew that if it succeeded it would take a long time & then stick for a long time. We have loooots of sites that often don't get a code revamp for years. Hence we wanted a plan that had some legs.
The reason we chose xHTML had a lot to do with speading the message that xHTML stands for. ie: tidy, lean, valid code etc. yeah i know its a lot more than that but for these people, thats the point that concerns them. We needed to get people realising that its important to close your tags, its important to make your tags lower case, its important to use a <hx> tag for a heading. (yeah its probably a heading 'element', not tag, but you know what i mean ;-)
So when we 'sold' the CSS concept internally, we 'sold' xHTML along with it, and everything that goes along with it to focus attention on better coding practices.
So yeah, that may sound crazy for some, but its a real world situation for us, and its something that has seen massive benefits. Its working. The xHTML doctype and standards mode (as opposed to quirks mode) is helping to focus attention internally on the need for better markup. We aint perfect, but its a big organisation and these things take time. Product managers (who have no idea what CSS even stands for) now want to know if their new design will use xHTML and sprites. funny, but true.
I'm glad we jumped in though and am comfortable with our stance on the subject. If we waited till our sites were valid before doing anything, I fear we would never even get into the game.
[1] I did a preso at a WSG meet a while ago on the
redesign of this site using css, heres the link if yr interested
http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resource210.cfm
http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resource210.cfm
cheers,
pete
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Ottery
Head of Design
Fairfax Digital
Level 3 Wharf 7 Pirrama Road
Pyrmont NSW 2009
www.fairfaxdigital.com.au
