Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > BBC website now entirely valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

Reply
Thread Tools

BBC website now entirely valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

 
 
123Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
Strict.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868
Impressive!
Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
123Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010

"123Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:i2f5mh$fcd$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
>Strict.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868
> Impressive!
> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


ah, ok, on further clicking I find it's ~largely~ XHTML strict .. still a
good effort showing the others the way! Good to see my license fee is being
used for ~some~ good.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
123Jim wrote:

> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
> Strict.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868
> Impressive!
> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


Except that it is still being sent as:
Content-Type: text/html
instead of
Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml
which means certain browsers (whose initials are Internet Explorer) will
interpret it as tag soup. If sent correctly, IE (all versions) will
simply "offer to download the file."

According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Adoption
(see paragraph beginning with: "Most web browsers have mature support")
this *might* be cured with the advent of IE9. This browser, however,
won't play on XP, so expect years until it becomes common.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
123Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:i2f88p$2qp$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> 123Jim wrote:
>
>> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
>> Strict.
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868
>> Impressive!
>> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?

>
> Except that it is still being sent as:
> Content-Type: text/html
> instead of
> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml
> which means certain browsers (whose initials are Internet Explorer) will
> interpret it as tag soup. If sent correctly, IE (all versions) will
> simply "offer to download the file."
>
> According to:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Adoption
> (see paragraph beginning with: "Most web browsers have mature support")
> this *might* be cured with the advent of IE9. This browser, however,
> won't play on XP, so expect years until it becomes common.
>


Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little hack to
allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed the Content-Type
to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8. .. and a pox on those
people using old browsers )


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy J Starcher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:00:18 +0100, 123Jim wrote:

> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little hack
> to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed the
> Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8. .. and a
> pox on those people using old browsers )



Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.
 
Reply With Quote
 
123Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010

"Jeremy J Starcher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:wAG2o.134$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:00:18 +0100, 123Jim wrote:
>
>> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little hack
>> to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed the
>> Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8. .. and a
>> pox on those people using old browsers )

>
>
> Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.


Yes .. I understand it's the web server's business to send the HTTP header
... but I'm not sure how that exactly works at the browser end .. why does it
even need that since all the info should be contained in the web-page?

The dark recesses of my brain is reminding me that someone said we should
stick with HTML 4.01 strict unless we have control of the web server to
insist it sends the appropriate header for XHTML. .. also xhtml may never
make it as the standard as HTML5 is on the way.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
123Jim wrote:

> "Jeremy J Starcher" wrote:
>> 123Jim wrote:
>>> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little
>>> hack to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed
>>> the Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8.
>>> .. and a pox on those people using old browsers )

>>
>> Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.

>
> Yes .. I understand it's the web server's business to send the HTTP
> header .. but I'm not sure how that exactly works at the browser end
> .. why does it even need that since all the info should be contained
> in the web-page?


There are zillions of web pages that do not contain a Content-Type,
because the author is not aware of it (and other items).

Do you have Firefox's Developer Toolbar installed? Visit the main BBC
page and look at: Information > View Response Headers


Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 20:42:48 GMT
Server: Apache
Etag: "1280004140"
Cache-Control: max-age=60, private
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Encoding: gzip
Age: 27
Content-Length: 16837
Content-Type: text/html <--- the HTTP header, not the HTML

200 OK

ISTR that even if the meta element says text/html but the HTTP header
says application/xhtml+xml - the HTTP header will win out.

> The dark recesses of my brain is reminding me that someone said we
> should stick with HTML 4.01 strict unless we have control of the web
> server to insist it sends the appropriate header for XHTML. .. also
> xhtml may never make it as the standard as HTML5 is on the way.


Most regulars 'round here would recommend HTML 4.01 Strict.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
123Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:i2fjt4$di8$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> 123Jim wrote:
>
>> "Jeremy J Starcher" wrote:
>>> 123Jim wrote:
>>>> Maybe being sent as the former rather than the latter is the little
>>>> hack to allow access by lesser browsers .. although when I changed
>>>> the Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml it rendered fine in IE8.
>>>> .. and a pox on those people using old browsers )
>>>
>>> Content-Type in the HTML != Content-Type of the HTTP header.

>>
>> Yes .. I understand it's the web server's business to send the HTTP
>> header .. but I'm not sure how that exactly works at the browser end
>> .. why does it even need that since all the info should be contained
>> in the web-page?

>
> There are zillions of web pages that do not contain a Content-Type,
> because the author is not aware of it (and other items).
>
> Do you have Firefox's Developer Toolbar installed? Visit the main BBC
> page and look at: Information > View Response Headers
>
>............................................>


thanks .. I did not realise Developer toolbar had this!

<............................................>
> Most regulars 'round here would recommend HTML 4.01 Strict.
>


I have heard that a few times here and there .. good to know I'm still in
the loop


 
Reply With Quote
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
On Jul 24, 11:51*am, "123Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
> Strict.http://www.bbc.co.uk/http://www.bbc....tland-10739868
> Impressive!
> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


No, this is not the right way to go, because it is not served
properly. If you validate at W3C and select "show source" and "verbose
output" under "more options" you find content type is "text/html".
Thus the page is being parsed as just html, not xhtml, and you would
better use html 4.01 strict in the first place. To serve the page
properly as xhtml, you must associate some extension such as .xhtml
with a xhtml mime type since .html is used by most servers for
ordinary html pages. If you do this, the page is parsed as xml, which
is extremely strict. A tiny error such as not closing a tag can give
you an error report from the parser rather than a view of the page.
This is because an xhtml page must be capable of handling xml
properly. A valid xhtml page served properly will be displayed
properly by most modern browsers. The glaring exception is that no IE
browser including IE8 can display an xhtml page served properly, but
there have been rumors that IE9 may finally display a properly served
xhtml page. Thus you must provide a html page for IE. One way to do
this is to use a php include at the very top of the page. Using header
exchange, the computer asks the server if it will accept xhtml. If so,
the xhtml page is used. If not, the xhtml page is re-written using
regular expressions, etc. to make it valid html 4.01 strict, for
example.

Furthermore xhtml 1.0 (3 versions) is now quite old, and xhtml 1.1 has
been around quite a while. Since xhtml 1.1 is not much more difficult
than html 1.0, I can not see the point in using xhtml 1.0 at this late
date. In fact a higher version of xhtml has had some work done on it.

I did validate http://www.bbc.co.uk/ at the W3C css validator. This
gives 18 css errors and 2700 warnings for the page.

I would guess that about 99% of pages that claim to be xhtml are
nothing of the sort. The w3c validator only checks to see if the code
validates as xhtml. It only will tell you if it is served properly as
xhtml if you find the proper mime type for it is used by the server
under "content type" at the W3C validator. Apparently many are not
aware of this.

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
In article <i2f5mh$fcd$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
"123Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I come back from holiday to find that the BBC now validates XHTML 1.0
> Strict.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10739868




> Impressive!


I suppose so, it is an improvement from just two days back, but
two out of the three urls still don't quite make the finishing
line. I guess people are working on it all the time and whovere
does is not in touch with whoever it is that checks to see it is
valid before it goes on line or something like that?


> Is this the way to go? Not HTML 4.01 strict?


Why would mere syntactical validity make you think this? *This*
is not much to do with the reasons for choosing 4.01 Strict.

--
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
Changing VS2005 to generate HTML 4.01/Strict instead of XHTML 1.0 Rob Roberts ASP .Net 5 01-20-2006 11:38 PM
Valid XHTML strict autocomplete workaround/hack for IE and Mozilla Kenn White Javascript 4 08-23-2004 06:50 AM
Need help with strict XHTML Brendan HTML 4 11-03-2003 01:49 PM
Announcing Limited Public Beta - XHTML 1.0 Strict Web Controls Peter L. ASP .Net 0 10-20-2003 08:14 PM
xhtml strict is being very stict why? Christopher R HTML 13 10-01-2003 07:17 PM



Advertisments