Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > xhtml table attributes

Reply
Thread Tools

xhtml table attributes

 
 
Rob W.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2010
Op 12-12-2010 15:24, notbob schreef:
> On 2010-12-12, Dylan Parry<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> XHTML as a spec is dead [....]. As a syntax, however, XHTML is very much alive in HTML5 [...].
>>


This is going to be pretty confusing for the not so very well initiated


>> I personally prefer the XHTML syntax as it reminds me to close all
>> elements and keep tags all lowercase etc.



This is something I read a lot and I'm not impressed.
What's wrong with you that you continually have to be reminded to close
elements?
You're smart enough to use a markup language but you keep forgetting to
use some pretty basic best-practices. That's very odd.

Do you also keep forgetting to close the door when you drive away in
your car? (some cars will drive with open doors)


>
> Good points, all.
>
> It's pretty obvious the whole mess in still in flux and nobody has
> settled on much of anything. This will be the fifth day I've been
> researching this one single issue and am still confused as ever.



Don't be.
You've already shown gratitude for the good advise you've gotten. So
stick with it. Go for HTML 4.01


> I guess I'll go with 4.01 .


See?


> Now, if anyone can point me to a good basic website how-to ....using
> html 4.01 and CSS!.... I'd appreciate it.



Included in the earlier good advice was <http://htmldog.com/>.

>
> nb



--
Rob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2010
notbob wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> It is the most oft-recommended tutorial... W3Schools is generally
>> regarded as, um, er .. crap. Lots of errors. Oh, and is not related
>> to the W3C at all.

>
> Ahh... I did not know that. Thnx for the clarification.
>
>> All except the Xhtml.

>
> DOH! Possibly a senior moment.
>
>> Y'know why? Bcuz a lot of WYSIWYG tools default to it ("the latest
>> whizz-bang dee-ziner must-have!") and the users don't know any
>> different so they never fix it.

>
> I guess it was W3C.org using xhtml that made up my mind,


http://www.w3.org/ ... Do note that even they are cheating in their
page generation. They are claiming the XHTML doctype, but are actually
transmitting the pages as:

Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <-- HTML, not XHTML

rather than the correct:

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

Of course, if they didn't cheat, everyone using IE would not be able to
read their web site. (My test page listed below)

Note that their pages about HTML 4.01 use that doctype instead of XHTML.

> but this wouldn't be the first time I've changed. I plan on doing all
> coding manually, till I understand.


And that way you will learn!

>> Ok, go here to this page of mine and run the test. Use IE, then any
>> other modern browser.
>> http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php
>> It should reaffirm what Jonathan said about Internet Explorer.

>
> I'll get back on that. I did run htmldog.com on both a XP w/ IE6 and
> my Slackware box w/ Seamonkey. They both rendered the same.


...because they too are cheating! (see above)

>> ..even if we can't convince you to drop Xhtml...

>
> I'm not made of stone. So far, the "html 4.01 strict" advice has been
> unanimous. I'm not against experienced advice or I wouldn't have
> asked the question. I started to go with html5, but discovered few
> browsers suppport it.
>
>> Choices between "tables for layout/CSS" and "HTML/XHTML" are two
>> different subjects, of course.

>
> I know how to do tables, from my old html 2.0 days (short lived), so
> if I'm gonna relearn, can't hurt to learn CSS, too. I'm no code boy,
> but am not afraid of jumping in. I want to do this right and prefer
> learning the right way, not the shortcuts.


It is sooo much easier using an external style sheet for presentation.
Change one file, changes entire web site. Use inline styles or in-page
style blocks only for one-off styling on a single page only.

> Thank you for your advice.


YW.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2010
notbob wrote:

> Now, if anyone can point me to a good basic website how-to ....using
> html 4.01 and CSS!.... I'd appreciate it.


http://htmldog.com/ <rof'l>

Just use the HTML 4.01 Strict doctype, and don't use those slashes when
closing elements. These: />
^
Now if you were asking about *design and layout* how-tos that's a whole
different ballgame. Design is in the eye of the beholder - and the
client if you're working for someone else. If the client wants and
insists on flashing red and green banners, you do it. Otherwise, you
create with good taste.

Speaking of design and layout, there's always the ZenGarden example.
http://www.csszengarden.com/
Same content, different style sheets. Pick from the menu on the right.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
Adrienne Boswell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2010
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Dylan Parry
<(E-Mail Removed)> writing in news:943243946313865040.855962usenet-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

> "Rob W." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> I personally prefer the XHTML syntax as it reminds me to close all
>>>> elements and keep tags all lowercase etc.

>>
>> This is something I read a lot and I'm not impressed.
>> What's wrong with you that you continually have to be reminded to
>> close elements?
>> You're smart enough to use a markup language but you keep forgetting
>> to use some pretty basic best-practices. That's very odd.

>
> It might be best practice, but it's not invalid to forget to close
> elements in HTML, but it is in XHTML, so a validator will pick up on
> such errors and warn about them. An incorrectly nested element could
> easily be the cause of a problem if you don't notice it—and late-

night
> coding can often cause such issues.


And modern browsers like Firefox and Opera will refuse to render that
page - IMO, great for testing.

>
>> Do you also keep forgetting to close the door when you drive away in
>> your car? (some cars will drive with open doors)

>
> I don't drive, so probably would
>


Be sure not to sit on the left side of the car when the driver is turning
left - you'll fall out. I did.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
 
Reply With Quote
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2010
On Dec 12, 9:12*am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> notbob wrote:
> > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> >> It is the most oft-recommended tutorial... *W3Schools is generally
> >> regarded as, um, er .. crap. Lots of errors. Oh, and is not related
> >> to the W3C at all.

>
> > Ahh... I did not know that. *Thnx for the clarification.

>
> >> All except the Xhtml.

>
> > DOH! *Possibly a senior moment.

>
> >> Y'know why? *Bcuz a lot of WYSIWYG tools default to it ("the latest
> >> whizz-bang dee-ziner must-have!") and the users don't know any
> >> different so they never fix it.

>
> > I guess it was W3C.org using xhtml that made up my mind,

>
> http://www.w3.org/... *Do note that even they are cheating in their
> page generation. They are claiming the XHTML doctype, but are actually
> transmitting the pages as:
>
> * *Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 * * *<-- HTML, not XHTML
>
> rather than the correct:
>
> * *Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
>
> Of course, if they didn't cheat, everyone using IE would not be able to
> read their web site. (My test page listed below)
>
> Note that their pages about HTML 4.01 use that doctype instead of XHTML.


The fairly new IE9 beta browser finally will handle xhtml served
properly as application/xhtml+xml, although I have found a bug or two.
Also IE9 beta will now handle much more xhtm5 including the video and
audio elements which are of much interest to some. However many IE8,7,
and even 6 browsers are still being used. Moreover, IE9 can be
installed only on Windows 7 and Vista OSs, and many XP OSs still are
being used. For these reasons, you likely will have to consider older
IE browsers for many more years. For these older IE browsers to view
an xhtml page properly served as application/xhtml+xml,some trick,
such as using a php insert to convert the xhtml page to a html page,
must be used if the header exchange dialogue does not indicate that
the viewing browser can handle the mime type application/xhtml+xml.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2010
cwdjrxyz wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

[snippage]
>> http://www.w3.org/... *Do note that even they are cheating in their
>> page generation. They are claiming the XHTML doctype, but are
>> actually transmitting the pages as:
>>
>> * *Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 * * *<-- HTML, not XHTML
>>
>> rather than the correct:
>>
>> * *Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
>>
>> Of course, if they didn't cheat, everyone using IE would not be able
>> to read their web site. (My test page listed below)
>>
>> Note that their pages about HTML 4.01 use that doctype instead of
>> XHTML.

>
> The fairly new IE9 beta browser finally will handle xhtml served
> properly as application/xhtml+xml, although I have found a bug or two.


Begs the response: "It's about time!!"

> Also IE9 beta will now handle much more xhtm5 including the video and
> audio elements which are of much interest to some. However many IE8,7,
> and even 6 browsers are still being used. Moreover, IE9 can be
> installed only on Windows 7 and Vista OSs, and many XP OSs still are
> being used. For these reasons, you likely will have to consider older
> IE browsers for many more years. For these older IE browsers to view
> an xhtml page properly served as application/xhtml+xml,some trick,
> such as using a php insert to convert the xhtml page to a html page,
> must be used if the header exchange dialogue does not indicate that
> the viewing browser can handle the mime type application/xhtml+xml.


I suspect the percentage of web authors who go for that amount of
sophistication will be a rather small number, eh?

One of my commercial sites this month has over half its hits from XP, a
fair smattering from Win9x, various Windows 200N, Windows NT, and even a
few stragglers from Windows 3.xx! Also, all versions of IE from 5.0 up
- but only 0.1% from IE9 so far.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Gould
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2010
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> cwdjrxyz wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

> [snippage]
>>> http://www.w3.org/... Do note that even they are cheating in their
>>> page generation. They are claiming the XHTML doctype, but are
>>> actually transmitting the pages as:
>>>
>>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <-- HTML, not XHTML
>>>
>>> rather than the correct:
>>>
>>> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8
>>>
>>> Of course, if they didn't cheat, everyone using IE would not be able
>>> to read their web site. (My test page listed below)
>>>
>>> Note that their pages about HTML 4.01 use that doctype instead of
>>> XHTML.

>>
>> The fairly new IE9 beta browser finally will handle xhtml served
>> properly as application/xhtml+xml, although I have found a bug or
>> two.

>
> Begs the response: "It's about time!!"
>

Hmm... my response is "too little too late."

> One of my commercial sites this month has over half its hits from XP,
> a fair smattering from Win9x, various Windows 200N, Windows NT, and
> even a few stragglers from Windows 3.xx! Also, all versions of IE
> from 5.0 up - but only 0.1% from IE9 so far.
>

By the time IE9 accounts for a large enough portion of the market to matter,
XHTML will likely be quite dead.

--
best regards,

Neil



 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2010
Neil Gould wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> cwdjrxyz wrote:
>>> The fairly new IE9 beta browser finally will handle xhtml served
>>> properly as application/xhtml+xml, although I have found a bug or
>>> two.

>>
>> Begs the response: "It's about time!!"
>>

> Hmm... my response is "too little too late."


That too...

> By the time IE9 accounts for a large enough portion of the market to
> matter, XHTML will likely be quite dead.


And I will be too old to care.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
mcnewsxp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2010
> Go with HTML 4.01 Strict.

may i ask what supports this assertion? i read thru some of the other
replies. is it mainly because microsoft does not support xhtml? the
company i work uses xhtml transitional. goofy little things like closed
short tags throw an error whne i switch to 4.0 strict.
what arguemnt should i use when trying to convince my colleagues that 4.01
strict is the smartest choice?
thanks,
mike


 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2010
In article <ieoggs$tb0$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
"mcnewsxp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Go with HTML 4.01 Strict.

>
> may i ask what supports this assertion? i read thru some of the other
> replies. is it mainly because microsoft does not support xhtml? the
> company i work uses xhtml transitional. goofy little things like closed
> short tags throw an error whne i switch to 4.0 strict.
> what arguemnt should i use when trying to convince my colleagues that 4.01
> strict is the smartest choice?
> thanks,
> mike


In your average world situation where you have colleagues that
need to be convinced for you to do something yourself, don't! Go
with the trendy but otherwise fairly pointless XHTML and just do
it right and serve it as HTML and get it valid and no bad things
will happen to you and you will save yourself a lot of grief.

--
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