Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Views on XHTML 1.1 site

Reply
Thread Tools

Views on XHTML 1.1 site

 
 
j1mb0jay
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first time I
have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.

http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6

--
Regards JJ (UWA)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J.O. Aho
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
j1mb0jay wrote:
> Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first
> time I have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
>
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6
>


Javascript page is horrible.

--

//Aho
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
On Feb 20, 10:51 am, "j1mb0jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first time I
> have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
>
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6


It's served as text/html so it's not proper XHTML 1.1. If it was
served properly then IE wouldn't be able to display it. In other
words, theres' no practical way to use XHTML 1.1 correctly on the web.
And virtually no practical reason why you would want to.

Steve

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
Scripsit Steve Pugh:

> It's served as text/html so it's not proper XHTML 1.1. If it was
> served properly then IE wouldn't be able to display it. In other
> words, theres' no practical way to use XHTML 1.1 correctly on the web.
> And virtually no practical reason why you would want to.


But the W3C makes a big noise about it! See http://www.w3.org main page
right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1 Second Edition.

Since XHTML 1.1 was an exercise in futility, I lack words to describe this
madness. They don't tell what they changed, but probably the dark orange
areas a indicate changes. They make a record in bogosity by including text
in dark red on dark orange background.

Regarding the page about which feedback was requested, it once again
confirms the principle that "Valid HTML!" icons and relatives are much worse
than useless and quite often simply incorrect (and sometimes blatant lies).
Clicking on the icon shows a message "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!".

This time, it's actually an easy-to-fix error: instead of wrapping <h3>
inside <a>, which is invalid (<a> is text level, <h3> is block level), you
can nest them the other way around,
<h3><a ...>...</a></h3>
(Using <h3> is semantically wrong, or at least questionable, since the page
has just two levels of headings - they should thus be <h1> and <h2>, not
<h2> and <h3>.)

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dorward
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
On Feb 20, 2:38 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> But the W3C makes a big noise about it! Seehttp://www.w3.orgmain page
> right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1 Second Edition.


Which says that XHTML 1.1 SHOULD be served as text/html... and
references a document which says it SHOULD NOT be served as text/html
to support that.

Genius.

(Longer version at http://blog.dorward.me.uk/2007/02/20/xhtml11.html )

--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby A Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
David Dorward wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> But the W3C makes a big noise about it! See http://www.w3.org main page
>> right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1 Second Edition.

>
> Which says that XHTML 1.1 SHOULD be served as text/html... and
> references a document which says it SHOULD NOT be served as text/html to
> support that.


The other major change is that it adds a Schema to validate your X(HT)ML
against. All XHTML 1.1 documents must continue to carry a DOCTYPE though,
and conform to the DTD.

Overall, I think I am *for* allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html,
provided it meets the compatibility guidelines in XHTML 1.0 Appendix C.

David, on your web page you write:

| Additionally, as far as I know, nothing added in XHTML 1.1 (i.e. Ruby
| annotation) is supported by legacy user agents. So there seems little
| point in allowing it to be served as text/html.

As it happens, Ruby annotation is *only* supported by Internet Explorer
5.0+ for both Windows and Macintosh -- precisely the sort of browsers that
benefit from allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html.

(With a bit of CSS trickery, you can fake Ruby support in other browsers.)

Yes, it would be nice if Internet Explorer supported XHTML properly, and
sending it as application/xhtml+xml serves as a useful stick to beat
Microsoft with, to encourage them to add proper XHTML support to their
browser.

You could argue that sending XHTML as text/html prevents you from taking
advantage of browsers' stricter parsing methods. But browser makers are
free to apply these strict parsing methods to XHTML documents served as
text/html -- there is *nothing* in any specification that even suggests
that they should not.

Allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html *finally* gives the CJK
community a standards-compliant way of serving ruby annotated text to a
user agent that supports ruby annotated text.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!
 
Reply With Quote
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
On Feb 20, 4:51 am, "j1mb0jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first time I
> have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
>
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6
>
> --
> Regards JJ (UWA)


There are 3 validation errors when checked as xhtml 1.1 at the W3C
html validator. The page is not served as html which is application/
xhtml+xml and not text/html as served. Thus the page as served is just
html. If it were properly served as xhtml it would not view on IE. If
served as true xhtml, you will have to put a mime type for xhtml on
the server such as associate the extension .xhtml or.xml with
application/xhtml+xml, since the mime type for html is already taken
as text/html. Then the page served as xhtml will not view on IE. You
must then either work on the header to detect if the page will accept
xhtml at all and automatically rewrite the page from xhtml to html
4.01 strict, using regular expressions and such if xhtml support is
not detected in the header exchange. Or you must write both an xhtml
page for IE and a few older browsers and an xhtml page for modern
browsers including Opera, Firefox, Netscape, Seamonkey, etc. Then an
introduction short html page would allow the user to select the page
to use. Or you could use Microsoft conditional comments to route to
the html page for IE and to the xhtml page for everything else. This
would of course miss a few older browsers. Don't blame the W3C for
this mess. The blame falls on Microsoft with their outmoded IE6
browser which does not support true xhtml, and neither doe their new
IE7! Yet Microsoft likely contributes more funds to the W3C than
anyone else and serves on several of their committees.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
Scripsit Toby A Inkster:

>> Additionally, as far as I know, nothing added in XHTML 1.1 (i.e. Ruby
>> annotation) is supported by legacy user agents. So there seems little
>> point in allowing it to be served as text/html.

>
> As it happens, Ruby annotation is *only* supported by Internet
> Explorer
> 5.0+ for both Windows and Macintosh -- precisely the sort of browsers
> that benefit from allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html.


IE has _limited_ Ruby support - to a useful extent, and Ruby can be used
rather safely on the web, since lack of support is not serious (Ruby is
designed to degrade gracefully on non-supporting browsers, provided of
course that authors use Ruby properly); faulty support would be serious.

But this has really nothing to do with XHTML 1.1 or XHTML in general. You
can simply include Ruby markup in a normal HTML markup and have it processed
by IE. Technically, of course, your document won't conform to the HTML 4.01
specification, but that's a formality only. The point is that _support_ to
Ruby does not depend on XHTML.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

 
Reply With Quote
 
j1mb0jay
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
j1mb0jay wrote:
> Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first
> time I have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
>
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6

Thank you for the replies you all gave. The reason I am using XHTML 1.1 is
that I have some coursework to do.

The javascript page will be changed i do agree that it looks rather poor.

What decleration should i use rather than text/html to allow for the propper
use of the required document type.
--
Regards JJ (UWA)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
On 20 Feb, 18:04, "j1mb0jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> What decleration should i use rather than text/html to allow


You should use a content-type of text/html, because anything else
breaks IE. The only viable alternative is to serve it dynamically,
according to what each browser claims to accept. Now you're having to
look at dynamic features for what should only need to be a simple
static site.

The doctype you use is probably best as HTML 4.01 Strict, but you
could use XHTML 1.0 Strict reasonably and validly (if not usefully).
What you can't do is to serve XHTML 1.1 by the same simple route.

If your course requires XHTML 1.1, then change course. They're
clueless and their teaching is untrustworthy.

 
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
PSD to XHTML Conversion, PSD to HTML, Joomla, Drupal, WordpressConversion, PSD to XHTML CSS xhtml champs XML 0 08-02-2011 05:40 AM
PSD to XHTML Conversion, PSD to HTML, Joomla, Drupal, WordpressConversion, PSD to XHTML CSS xhtml champs C Programming 0 08-01-2011 06:29 AM
convert xhtml to another xhtml using xslt Usha2009 XML 0 12-20-2009 01:13 PM
Should I Convert Site To XHTML or XHTML mobile? chronos3d HTML 9 12-05-2006 04:46 PM
parse URL (href) from xhtml, xhtml -> text, for data hawat.thufir@gmail.com XML 7 02-08-2006 07:39 PM



Advertisments