«

C A Upsdell wrote:
>
> Of course the purists will wail and hunt you down if you use XHTML,
> hence cowardice may be the better part of valour.

This could be the key I've been missing to let me unlock the door to
true enlightenment. I think I will add this to my .sig, and meditate on
the meaning of it.

--
John
"Cowardice may be the better part of valour." -C A Upsdell

Scott Johnson <> wrote:

>Most of my experience is in back-end coding with PHP and MySQL but am
>venturing out into the design area and need an opinion please.
>
>Which spec would be the smartest one to live up to?
>
>HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 both being strict.

The main arguments against XHTML are at
<http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml>.
An amusing counter-argument to Hickson's is here
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2007Jun/0008.html>.
The main argument in favour of XHTML is that the World Wide Web
Consortium, the source for HTML scripture, uses it
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html>.

David Segall wrote:

> The main argument in favour of XHTML is that the World Wide Web
> Consortium, the source for HTML scripture, uses it
> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html>.

Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8

The amusing part of that page is that 58.3% of visitors will be asked if
they want to "download the page." <lol>

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

Ed Mullen <> wrote:


>So, can someone make a case for using XHTM instead of HTML? I mean, is
>there any case where it /should/ be (or /needs/ to be) used?

I don't think that is necessary. The W3C uses and recommends XHTML so
it is up to its detractors to make a case for _not_ using XHTML. The
entire argument is based on conforming to standards and the source of
those standards is the W3C. There is a simple work-around for the
failure of Internet Explorer to correctly interpret the XHTML standard
and the DOCTYPE ensures that the author adheres to XHTML even if a
browser does not.

In article <>,
David Segall <> wrote:

> There is a simple work-around for the
> failure of Internet Explorer to correctly interpret the XHTML standard
> and the DOCTYPE ensures that the author adheres to XHTML even if a
> browser does not.

There are criticisms that IE does not "correctly" interpret the XHTML
standard.

--
dorayme

David Segall wrote:

> Ed Mullen <> wrote:
>> So, can someone make a case for using XHTM instead of HTML? I mean,
>> is there any case where it /should/ be (or /needs/ to be) used?

These folks have presented a fairly good argument for using HTML:
<http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml>
<http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm>

> I don't think that is necessary. The W3C uses and recommends XHTML so
> it is up to its detractors to make a case for _not_ using XHTML.

Um, but they cheat and send their pages as:
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
instead of:
Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
which is the correct content-type for XHTML.

This previous link you posted does use the correct content-type. How do
you see this page in Internet Explorer?
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html>

The page also uses the correct XML prologue, and IE just dies.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

Besides, I do not see anything on that page which states the W3C
actually recommends that anyone actually *use* XHTML. It's just an essay
on what's happening with their committees.

> The entire argument is based on conforming to standards and the source
> of those standards is the W3C.

I think you are confusing the meaning of "standards." Properly marked
HTML is a "standard."

> There is a simple work-around for the failure of Internet Explorer to
> correctly interpret the XHTML standard and the DOCTYPE ensures that
> the author adheres to XHTML even if a browser does not.

...and that work-around is to cheat and tell your server not to send it
as XHTML, even though the markup may be valid.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

>David Segall wrote:
>
>> The main argument in favour of XHTML is that the World Wide Web
>> Consortium, the source for HTML scripture, uses it
>> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html>.
>
> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
>
>The amusing part of that page is that 58.3% of visitors will be asked if
>they want to "download the page." <lol>

I had no trouble reading it on my computer. I use Firefox with the IE
View Add On, so I let Microsoft decide which version of Internet
Explorer they want me to use. They tell me it's currently 7.0.5730.11.

I tried the page in browsershots
<http://browsershots.org/http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html> and
it seems to work in IE 5.5 and later. Based on that, I would expect
that only 13.8435% of visitors would have difficulty viewing the page.
Why do you think your estimate is more accurate than mine?

David Segall wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>David Segall wrote:
>>> The main argument in favour of XHTML is that the World Wide Web
>>> Consortium, the source for HTML scripture, uses it
>>> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html>.
>>
>> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
>>
>> The amusing part of that page is that 58.3% of visitors will be
>> asked if they want to "download the page." <lol>
>
> I had no trouble reading it on my computer. I use Firefox with the IE
> View Add On, so I let Microsoft decide which version of Internet
> Explorer they want me to use. They tell me it's currently
> 7.0.5730.11.
>
> I tried the page in browsershots
> <http://browsershots.org/http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html> and
> it seems to work in IE 5.5 and later. Based on that, I would expect
> that only 13.8435% of visitors would have difficulty viewing the page.

Note that the Activity.html page does some cheating [1]. While its
server is sending as application/xhtml+xml, there is a meta line of:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
and who knows how that will affect browsershots or your Firefox addon.

I would suggest you use a real Internet Explorer running in some version
of Windows, rather than an add-on, or a "viewer" that may or may not
ignore the actual content type.

Here's another test for you. Try one of the XHTML links here on my site:
http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php
Use a real Internet Explorer.

> Why do you think your estimate is more accurate than mine?

What, that 58.3%? Heh, just a wild guess for today's IE users. There's
no real way to get an accurate measurement; UA strings are easily
forged.

[1] The cheating at W3C implies to me that even they believe that the
Web is not ready for XHTML. Not while Microsoft is in the browser
business.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

>David Segall wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>David Segall wrote:
>>>> The main argument in favour of XHTML is that the World Wide Web
>>>> Consortium, the source for HTML scripture, uses it
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html>.
>>>
>>> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
>>>
>>> The amusing part of that page is that 58.3% of visitors will be
>>> asked if they want to "download the page." <lol>
>>
>> I had no trouble reading it on my computer. I use Firefox with the IE
>> View Add On, so I let Microsoft decide which version of Internet
>> Explorer they want me to use. They tell me it's currently
>> 7.0.5730.11.
>>
>> I tried the page in browsershots
>> <http://browsershots.org/http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html> and
>> it seems to work in IE 5.5 and later. Based on that, I would expect
>> that only 13.8435% of visitors would have difficulty viewing the page.
>
>Note that the Activity.html page does some cheating [1]. While its
>server is sending as application/xhtml+xml, there is a meta line of:
><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
>and who knows how that will affect browsershots or your Firefox addon.
>
>I would suggest you use a real Internet Explorer running in some version
>of Windows, rather than an add-on, or a "viewer" that may or may not
>ignore the actual content type.
>
>Here's another test for you. Try one of the XHTML links here on my site:
>http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php
>Use a real Internet Explorer.
>
>> Why do you think your estimate is more accurate than mine?
>
>What, that 58.3%? Heh, just a wild guess for today's IE users. There's
>no real way to get an accurate measurement; UA strings are easily
>forged.
>
>[1] The cheating at W3C implies to me that even they believe that the
>Web is not ready for XHTML. Not while Microsoft is in the browser
>business.

I'm sorry. My post extremely badly expressed. Let me try again.

My Internet Explorer, Version 7.0.5730.11 displays the page correctly.
The version 5.5, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 of Internet Explorer used by
browsershots to render the page display it correctly. Why do you think
that any browser released this century would ask the visitor if they
want to download the page?

I don't dispute that there is a problem and your page does demonstrate
it. I just don't see a problem with the W3C page and I would be
stunned if they included content that would be difficult to read using
Internet Explorer.

David Segall wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
>>David Segall wrote:
>> <snippage>
>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html>.
>>>>
>>>> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
>>>
>>> I tried the page in browsershots
>>> <http://browsershots.org/http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html>
>>> and it seems to work in IE 5.5 and later. Based on that, I would
>>> expect that only 13.8435% of visitors would have difficulty viewing
>>> the page.
>>
>> Note that the Activity.html page does some cheating [1]. While its
>> server is sending as application/xhtml+xml, there is a meta line of:
>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
>> /> and who knows how that will affect browsershots or your Firefox
>> addon.
>>
>> I would suggest you use a real Internet Explorer running in some
>> version of Windows, rather than an add-on, or a "viewer" that may or
>> may not ignore the actual content type.
>>
>> Here's another test for you. Try one of the XHTML links here on my
>> site: http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php Use a real Internet
>> Explorer.
>>
>> [1] The cheating at W3C implies to me that even they believe that
>> the Web is not ready for XHTML. Not while Microsoft is in the
>> browser business.
>
> I'm sorry. My post extremely badly expressed. Let me try again.
>
> My Internet Explorer, Version 7.0.5730.11 displays the [W3C] page
> correctly. The version 5.5, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 of Internet Explorer
> used by browsershots to render the page display it correctly.

Since we don't know exactly how browsershots works, I'll take a stab at
it. I'd say that their server does a wget of a submitted page, and
stores the result to a temporary space. It then locally feeds the result
to the various selected browser engines, on their server. Therefore, the
actual page's server content-type is never seen by browsershots.

> Why do you think that any browser released this century would ask the
> visitor if they want to download the page?

That would be a question to ask Microsoft, whose browsers do not
understand properly-sent XHTML with the proper content-type of
application/xhtml+xml.

> I don't dispute that there is a problem and your page does demonstrate
> it.

So with my page in your own Internet Explorer, the problem was? It
offered to "download the file" ?

I've just sent my page to browsershots and chose IE 6 and 7.
http://tekrider.net/html/doc.xhtml1.0.php
After waiting about an hour, it came back and said that "IE6 not
available" and displayed it correctly with IE7. So their tool does not
recognize my server's content-type.

> I just don't see a problem with the W3C page and I would be
> stunned if they included content that would be difficult to read
> using Internet Explorer.

And again, this is because they cheat and send a content-type of
text/html, which is something IE can comprehend.

Would anyone else care to step in and confirm that Internet Explorer
cannot comprehend XHTML sent as application/xhtml+xml? And that sending
XHTML with the required XML Prolog line above the doctype throws IE into
quirks mode?

As I stated previously, I think the world is not ready for real XHTML as
long as Microsoft is in the browser business.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows