For Programmers: Free Programming Magazines  


Home > Archive > PERL CGI Beginners > September 2005 > XHTML (was Re: One link to 2 frames)









You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

 

Author XHTML (was Re: One link to 2 frames)
David Dorward

2005-09-21, 7:55 am

On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:11:59PM +0200, MNibble wrote:

> I won't say you are wrong, since you are right.I (please don't throw
> stones or bits at me) already use css und div span and stuff like that
> and if it is called xhtml that's fine for me


That isn't what is called XHTML.

XHTML 1.0 is HTML 4.01 expressed in XML instead of SGML. In practise,
its pointless for 99/100 cases. It has Appendix C which does a bunch
of handwaving and allows you to serve XHTML with the text/html content
type so that "legacy" user agents which don't understand XHTML (like
Googlebot and Internet Explorer) can cope with it if you follow some
additional constraints (of course Appendix C depends on browsers
getting some parts of HTML wrong in the first place, and not all
browsers do, so its pretty rubbish).

XHTML 1.1 is XHTML 1.0 Strict with Ruby added.

XHTML 2.0 isn't ready and is pretty much an entirely new language that
does a similar job to HTML.

In practise XHTML is far more trouble then its worth unless you have a
need for mixed namespaces (if you don't know what they are, you don't
need them) and should generally be avoided in favour of the better
supported HTML 4.01 (the Strict variant).

Using CSS for layout, HTML (or XHTML) for semantics, relationships and
structure, and JavaScript for behaviour is generally lumped under the
umbrella heading of "Standards based design".

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

Chris Devers

2005-09-21, 6:55 pm

David Dorward

2005-09-21, 6:55 pm

On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 10:18:37AM -0400, Chris Devers wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, David Dorward wrote:


[color=darkred]
> Really?


Yes.

> As in the scripting language Ruby?


No. As in the Ruby Annotation language.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/

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

Sponsored Links







Also available: Server administration forum archive | Web Design forum archive | Software forum archive | Hardware reviews archive

Copyright 2008 codecomments.com