Beware of XHTML

[iGav]

Beware.... Blimey.

 

[jng]

XHTML is a very good thing, and I certainly hope to see it gain widespread acceptance in the future. However, it simply isn't widely supported in its proper form. XHTML is an XML format, and to force a web browser to treat it like HTML is going against the whole purpose of XHTML and also inevitably causes other complications.

I think that summarizes everything. It complains that CSS Zen Garden and Mezzoblue don't show when parsed as XML, but whatever. As long as the sites work for me, I'm happy.

As a designer, I just want my sites to work. And although I understand the philosophy of the people making standards, I don't necessarily need to abide by them.

It shouldn't be "beware of XHTML" but rather "XHTML doesn't do what it in principle should do" that is, it still too much like HTML and not enough XML.

 

[snakesqzns]

I haven't had any problems sticking with xhtml-transitional yet, and haven't had a need for xhtml-strict, yet.

Whether we're talking about XHTML or something else, it's still very important for web content producers to continue to push browser developers to support progressive web standards.

I'm sure if we look we could find criticisms from the past along the lines of "HTML 3.0 is bad; HTML 2.0 is good enough."

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...gh"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

[radiantm3]

Articles like that don't mean XHTML is bad. It's just to inform you that HTML is still a standard and XHTML can't get parsed as XML in most browsers which is one of the main benefits of using it in the first place. Personally, I think XHTML strict is good practice from a coding/semantics perspective regardless of whether it's being parsed as html or not. I like all the rules that go along with XHTML and I think html lets people become very sloppy.

 

[Bern]

...I like all the rules that go along with XHTML and I think html lets people become very sloppy.

I agree. Using XHTML strict certainly makes you keep your head above water. HTML has always been abused by "designers" and a lot of WYSIWYG apps. By using XHTML (more so strict) I am sticking to standards and keeping lean code which will have more longevity than sloppy HTML that usually needs "amending" whenever a new browser version gets released.

 

[SC68Cal]

Long story short: Nobody is feeling like creating an XML parser in their web browser that works correctly, as well as web designers not doing their homework on how to use XHTML code.

 

[SC68Cal]

*sighs*

I tried to start polishing up my web application to validate to XHTML, and it actually ended up breaking mine.

I had a text box, and suddenly half my code decided to move into it and live there :-\

Had to grab a backup, got lost in the forest of line numbers and have to give up.

 

[Max Payne]

I don't understand the need for so many standards, if they all do the same damn job.

 

[SC68Cal]

I don't understand the need for so many standards, if they all do the same damn job.

HTML isn't very good with assistive technologies such as screen readers, as well as having the benefits of the XML format.

 

[jng]

I don't understand the need for so many standards, if they all do the same damn job.

Some do it better than others and standards help with that. When I debug XHTML/CSS, the first thing I do is make it validate. It usually helps identifying the problem or deducing the problem.