Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

View Poll Results: You prefer to code in which language?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • HTML 3.1

    0 0%
  • HTML 4.0

    0 0%
  • XHTML Transitional

    5 45.45%
  • XHTML strict

    5 45.45%
  • XML

    0 0%
  • Don't care

    1 9.09%
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: HTML vs XHTML

  1. #1
    Senior Member tha_Gsheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    188
    Member #
    780
    Hi there people, I have a friend who is on the edge of using XHTML and I will be meeting with hime at our web designers meetup to discuss the advantages and disadvantages. I was wondering who here is currently using HTML as opposed to xhtml? If you are using HTML because you have reasons to not use xhtml could you please state them? Or vice versa you believe that it is too early to use XHTML then please also state that.


    I will post the message here I posted on our group to explain my current stance.

    --- XHTML vs HTML ---

    Its true that some older browsers do not render xhtml right but if you have a well formatted page:

    * XHTML elements must be properly nested
    * XHTML documents must be well-formed
    * Tag names must be in lowercase
    * All XHTML elements must be closed

    and you don't have any calls to the DOM that are invalid in xhtml but not in html 3.1, then you are usually fine. Its only when you have a considerably large number of scripts that it starts to become a problem.

    Its completely true that there are two quite opposing fields of thought on the benefits but I've always been inclined to be on the side of future expansion and xhtml. I believe for the very few limitations that serving up application/xhtml+xml we are eventually climbing to incredible benefits. About two years ago there was the valid argument that older browsers were going to have a hard time with the code and that there were virtually no applications using xml connectivity but thats all different now. The fact is that its not only web browsers that need access to the information on websites now and they can't get to it if its in anything that is not xml compliant. Using xhtml encourages the advancement of the web in many ways if not only for good coding practices!

    Advantages:
    Can be read by any XML tools
    Extensibility
    XHTML has stricter code and encourages layer-defined (structure, presentation, behaviour) semantic markup

    Disadvantages:
    Old Browsers have a hard time with xhtml - I know this is true but my sites work and looking at the statistics:
    http://www.upsdell.com/B rowserNews/stat.htm
    we can expect about 0.4% to be using browsers older than ie4 (and thats if they are all die hard not using xhtml types)

    The disadvantages to me seem really pernicketty and reminicent of the why use css argument. Looking back I saw a lot of people who had put a lot of effort into learning tables and weren't keen on being told that their honed techniques were not elite as they had once thought.
    Eventually everyone has to come to the reasoning that we all must keep learning at every step of the way.

    To me it seems the most visited sites on the web are unevenly divided in opinion:

    XHTML: msn.com, wikipedia.org, yahoo.com, ask.com, fox.com, cnn.com, itv.com
    HTML: google.com, lycos.com

    both: bbc.co.uk

    I'm sure there are many reasons not to use xhtml but my point is that they are so limited to technical aspects that can be overcome with participation that we may as well press on.
    www.appletv.co.uk

  2.  

  3. #2
    Senior Member Rince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    183
    Member #
    8318
    Its true that some older browsers do not render xhtml right but if you have a well formatted page:
    It's more important to know the standards and break them in full knowledge of how and why you are doing so and what the consequences are than to stick to the standards come hell or high water (or to be ingnorant of the standars an just write junk).

    In other words. Code to highest standard. Then test. If you need to tweek something to a non standard setting to get it to work in the real world browsers - then so be it. That said - it's only IE 4/5 and NN4 that will have any problems with standards and do you really need to support them?

    In general - sites that use html non standard are old sites that predate the standards adoption by browsers. Where as standard compiant sites tend to be new. For example, slashdot.com just this week upgraded to html 4.01. It looks the same as before, just the backend that changed. So with that thought, why put effort into chaning things further. If the site works in all browsers, that ultimatly is more important than recoding to some standard that might break the site.

    So new sites - nothing to loose so might as well stick to standards. But old sites - why fix what ain't brocken.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Fallout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    543
    Member #
    2748
    As Rince said, I'll code to standards in Firefox, and I then go through other browsers to test. If I have to put in a hack or two that will invalidate my page, I do it. The presentation is what is important to the customer, not whether is passes a standards test.


Remove Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com