Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   HTML (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f31-html.html)
-   -   what is better strict or xhtml? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t162083-what-is-better-strict-or-xhtml.html)

windandwaves 06-21-2005 10:22 PM

what is better strict or xhtml?
 
Hi Gurus

What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:

xhtml (
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">) or html strict (

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

)
I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas



Els 06-21-2005 10:31 PM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
windandwaves wrote:

> Hi Gurus


Gurus isn't here atm [1]. Can I help you instead?

> What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:
>
> xhtml (
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">) or html strict (
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
>
> )
> I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
> xhtml. What would you recommend?


You could have both if you want:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

I'm not saying it's better than Strict HTML though. Others can explain
exactly why, I only know that not all browsers understand XHTML - IIRC
IE needs to be tricked to think it's really HTML instead of XHTML.


[1] not my own joke - I just repeated it :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Mark Parnell 06-22-2005 12:20 AM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <winandwaves@coldmail.com> said:

> I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
> xhtml.


What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

> What would you recommend?


Use Strict, regardless of whether you use HTML or XHTML. I don't see any
benefit in using XHTML, and as Els mentioned, you have to pretend it's
HTML anyway.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/

windandwaves 06-22-2005 03:24 AM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
Mark Parnell wrote:
> Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <winandwaves@coldmail.com> said:
>
>> I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable
>> to go for xhtml.

>
> What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?


Because i thought a document could only be A or B, just the wrong
assumption. Are you saying you could have a strict and transitional
document? So, I can stay with strict. I think the hype is all about xml.
Xml being a really smart and easy way to "package" data platform
independent.

>> What would you recommend?

>
> Use Strict, regardless of whether you use HTML or XHTML. I don't see
> any benefit in using XHTML, and as Els mentioned, you have to pretend
> it's HTML anyway.


Yep, will stay with strict.



windandwaves 06-22-2005 03:28 AM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
Els wrote:
> windandwaves wrote:
>
>> Hi Gurus

>
> Gurus isn't here atm [1]. Can I help you instead?


Thank you Els, you are a Guru in my book.



Mark Parnell 06-22-2005 03:40 AM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <winandwaves@coldmail.com> said:

> Because i thought a document could only be A or B, just the wrong
> assumption.


That depends what A and B are. XHTML vs HTML and Strict vs Transitional
are 2 completely separate issues.

> Are you saying you could have a strict and transitional
> document?


No, but an HTML document can be either Strict or Transitional. And an
XHTML document can be either Strict or Transitional[1].

> Yep, will stay with strict.


HTML, presumably. :-)

[1] OK, so only true for XHTML1.0, not 1.1. But since XHTML1.1 *must* be
served as XHTML, and IE doesn't understand XHTML, XHTML1.1 is simply not
practical on the WWW at the moment, and probably won't be for a number
of years yet.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/

Neredbojias 06-22-2005 08:13 AM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
With neither quill nor qualm, windandwaves quothed

> I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
> xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas


Use xhtml if you're planning on making your markup erotic.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

Steve Pugh 06-22-2005 09:25 AM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
windandwaves wrote:

> What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:
>
> xhtml (
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">) or html strict (
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
>
> )
> I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
> xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas


Of those two I would use HTML 4.01 Strict. But those are not the only
two options. Both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 exist in Strict and
Transitional flavours. Whether you use HTML 4.01 Strict or XHTML 1.0
Strict is largely a matter of personal taste. But either way use
Strict.

Steve


Andy Dingley 06-22-2005 09:38 AM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:22:57 +1200, "windandwaves"
<winandwaves@coldmail.com> wrote:

>What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:


Why lower yourself to the standards of most professionals ? 8-)


>I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable to go for
>xhtml.


First of all, there are four choices here, not two. Or more plainly, a
choice of HTML 4.01 / XHTML 1.0 _and_ a separate choice of Strict /
Transitional.

Most useful of all is simply to be valid as _something_. Pick one
randomly, but at least achieve it. The biggest benefits are from this,
not which one you pick.

Second biggest benefit is in using a doctype that puts IE into
standards-based rendering, not quirks mode.


XHTML needs to be served as text/html to get anywhere useful on the
existing web (Appendix C etc.) So this also means that some useful XML
features of it, such as namespacing, aren't viable at present. If
you're into SMIL, SVG or RDF metadata, then you might find it acceptable
to serve your XHTML properly as XML, even though that somewhat limits
your audience.

XHTML is useful internally because it allows XML tools within your CMS.
It's also useful to have XML output, because that allows your output to
be an input to some other CMS task. It's also a good long-term idea to
start having your content as cleanly well-formed XML

Transitional is useful because it allows the <a target="..." >
attribute. Some will disagree as to its value, but if you want it,
that's how you get it.

Strict is not particularly useful. It's no magic bullet to make your
markup beautiful. You can still write garbage in Strict. What's useful
is the _attitude_ to using Strict - i.e. dumping <font> and you can
achieve that equally well by marking up sensibly and still labelling it
with a Transitional doctype.

windandwaves 06-22-2005 11:56 AM

Re: what is better strict or xhtml?
 
Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, windandwaves quothed
>
>> I have been using strict for my websites, but it seems fashionable
>> to go for xhtml. What would you recommend?TIA- Nicolaas

>
> Use xhtml if you're planning on making your markup erotic.


brilliant!




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.