Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > what is better strict or xhtml?

Reply
Thread Tools

what is better strict or xhtml?

 
 
windandwaves
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-21-2005
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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-21-2005
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 -
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2005
Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <(E-Mail Removed)> 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/
 
Reply With Quote
 
windandwaves
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2005
Mark Parnell wrote:
> Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
windandwaves
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2005
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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2005
Previously in alt.html, windandwaves <(E-Mail Removed)> 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/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2005
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2005
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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2005
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:22:57 +1200, "windandwaves"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>What is the most professional standard for creating webpages:


Why lower yourself to the standards of most professionals ?


>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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
windandwaves
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2005
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!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GL2 better than the XLs? Consumer grade HDs better than pro-sumer Mini DVs? dh@. DVD Video 1 08-28-2008 07:20 PM
The SCO case gets better and better.... thingy NZ Computing 2 12-10-2006 11:33 AM
Is splint really better than lint? Is there a better tool than splint? Peter Bencsik C Programming 2 09-21-2006 10:02 PM
Build a Better Blair (like Build a Better Bush, only better) Kenny Computer Support 0 05-06-2005 04:50 AM
Why doesn't the better camera have a better dpi? Tony Carlisle Digital Photography 6 10-04-2003 10:40 AM



Advertisments