Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

Reply
Thread Tools

XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

 
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2007
I was of the (possibly misguided) impression over the last several years
that XHTML 1.1 was the current direction of web publishing. Lurking
here, I sense a pronounced disdain for it. At the risk of incurring the
wrath of some here, could you give me some insight on this, and possible
direction. The last thing I need is to spend a lot more time and effort
"mastering" something that I shouldn't be doing in the first place.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dorward
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2007
On Jul 10, 4:15 pm, William Gill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I was of the (possibly misguided) impression over the last several years
> that XHTML 1.1 was the current direction of web publishing. Lurking
> here, I sense a pronounced disdain for it. At the risk of incurring the
> wrath of some here, could you give me some insight on this, and possible
> direction.


XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2007


David Dorward wrote:
> XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
> support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
> among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
> Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
> of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.


I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.

Thanks.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Hosking
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2007
William Gill wrote:
>
> David Dorward wrote:
>> XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
>> support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
>> among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
>> Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
>> of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

>
> I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
> polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
> spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.


What a refreshing change! A poster who lurks first, writes clearly, and
responds politely! I was about to give up hope...

A well-behaved gentleman like yourself would be welcome in most any
technical discussion you'd care to contribute to. You might also want to
visit/lurk/participate at c.i.w.a.html, if you're not already.

One of the multitude of articles and discussions regarding XHTML is
sitting in my bookmarks (from 2005):
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archiv...html_properly/
(which URL which probably wrap). That article comes from a different
direction, but touches on some of the issues to consider. Be sure to
read through the comments.

I haven't had need to touch XHTML so I stay with HTML 4.01 strict.

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2007
Scripsit David Dorward:

> XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
> support among clients)


The parenthetic remark is not correct. Ruby annotations are supported, with
limitations, by Internet Explorer (even in version 6). On the other hand, IE
is happy to do Ruby irrespectively of the document type you declare - it
does not care the least about the document type, except for analizing the
doctype string for the sole purpose of selecting Quirks vs. "Standards"
mode.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Streater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2007
In article <0_Oki.21270$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
William Gill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> David Dorward wrote:
> > XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
> > support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
> > among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
> > Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
> > of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

>
> I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
> polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
> spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.


I am also engaged in the same process.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dorward
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2007
On Jul 10, 6:34 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Scripsit David Dorward:
> > XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
> > support among clients)

>
> The parenthetic remark is not correct. Ruby annotations are supported, with
> limitations, by Internet Explorer (even in version 6).


So that is one client that supports it, so long as you don't serve it
as application/xhtml+xml (which you "SHOULD" do).

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2007
In article <4693c25e$(E-Mail Removed)>,
John Hosking <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> What a refreshing change! A poster who lurks first, writes clearly, and
> responds politely! I was about to give up hope...


Hang on there... give him time... he might change. It may be a
ploy to disarm you... I have been reflecting deeply on JK's point
about it being hard not to be cynical in _this_ world.

--
dorayme
 
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