Today's Posts Follow Us On Twitter! TFL Members on Twitter  
Forum search: Advanced Search  
Navigation
Marketplace
  Members Login:
Lost password?
  Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 24,254
Total Threads: 80,792
Total Posts: 566,471
There are 1131 users currently browsing (tf).
 
  Our Partners:
 
  TalkFreelance     Design and Development     HTML/XHTML/DHTML/CSS :

XHTML vs HTML?

Thread title: XHTML vs HTML?
Closed Thread  
Page 5 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5
    Thread tools Search this thread Display Modes  
02-10-2008, 11:03 PM
#41
Addict Web Studios is offline Addict Web Studios
Status: Junior Member
Join date: Dec 2007
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Addict Web Studios is on a distinguished road

  Old

Originally Posted by Dr John View Post
Wrong.

HTML and css is just as clean and easy to use as XHTML. HTML can be as totally free of presentation mark-up as XHTML. You are confusing the way people used to code their HTML with lots inline styles, and the way when XHTML came out and early adopters all went for no inline styles and css. You can add as many inline styles to your XHTML as you want, and it will render (but may not validate), and have no inline styles in your HTML and lots of css, if you want. It's just that you have seen the early adopters of XHTML immediately reject the inline styles and assumed, wrongly, that HTML could not do that.

It's a frame of mind, and early users of HTML had the wrong frame of mind (mixing content and presentation) while early users of XHTML had the right frame of mind (total separation of content and presentation). But the ideas they used in their XHTML were perfectly applicable to HTML, it was just that most people didn't do it. Take any of your XHTML pages and change the doctype to html 4.01 strict, remove any closing /> that html doesn't require, and low and behold, it will render correctly in most modern browsers. Any errors in rendering will be due to IE bugs, not HTML not being as capable.

The tag soup problem from several years ago was not a feature of HTML, it was a feature of poor, unskilled, careless coders, with some browsers, mainly IE, being more capable of interpreting this erroneous code, and thus those poorer coders produced more dud code, unaware of it's errors. If they had bothered to validate the code, it should have been detected as erroneous. But they didn't bother, as IE worked out what they meant (usually, not always). You can write tag soup in XHTML, it's just that those who imagine it is better are more careful and avoid it, and they do tend to validate their code, the errors are detected and they correct the errors. You can't blame HTML for tag soup and messy code. It was just as wrong in HTML as it is in XHTML.

PS HTML 5 will not be used for at least another 5 years, probably even longer. So forget about that for a while.
I tried to make it simple, but ok

02-10-2008, 11:06 PM
#42
Andrew R is offline Andrew R
Status: Request a custom title
Join date: Dec 2005
Location: Arizona
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 5,200
iTrader: 17 / 95%
 

Andrew R is on a distinguished road

  Old

Originally Posted by Dr John View Post
Wrong.

HTML and css is just as clean and easy to use as XHTML. HTML can be as totally free of presentation mark-up as XHTML. You are confusing the way people used to code their HTML with lots inline styles, and the way when XHTML came out and early adopters all went for no inline styles and css. You can add as many inline styles to your XHTML as you want, and it will render (but may not validate), and have no inline styles in your HTML and lots of css, if you want. It's just that you have seen the early adopters of XHTML immediately reject the inline styles and assumed, wrongly, that HTML could not do that.

It's a frame of mind, and early users of HTML had the wrong frame of mind (mixing content and presentation) while early users of XHTML had the right frame of mind (total separation of content and presentation). But the ideas they used in their XHTML were perfectly applicable to HTML, it was just that most people didn't do it. Take any of your XHTML pages and change the doctype to html 4.01 strict, remove any closing /> that html doesn't require, and low and behold, it will render correctly in most modern browsers. Any errors in rendering will be due to IE bugs, not HTML not being as capable.

The tag soup problem from several years ago was not a feature of HTML, it was a feature of poor, unskilled, careless coders, with some browsers, mainly IE, being more capable of interpreting this erroneous code, and thus those poorer coders produced more dud code, unaware of it's errors. If they had bothered to validate the code, it should have been detected as erroneous. But they didn't bother, as IE worked out what they meant (usually, not always). You can write tag soup in XHTML, it's just that those who imagine it is better are more careful and avoid it, and they do tend to validate their code, the errors are detected and they correct the errors. You can't blame HTML for tag soup and messy code. It was just as wrong in HTML as it is in XHTML.

I've just added this to an XHTML Strict web page <b><i>Manufactured</b></i> and it rendered in bold and italic, exactly as predicted. In IE 7 and in FireFox. Depreciated, inline and tag soup.

PS HTML 5 will not be used for at least another 5 years, probably even longer. So forget about that for a while.
Thank god there is yet another coder who uses logic and common sense, and actually knows the differences between HTML and XHTML.

02-10-2008, 11:09 PM
#43
Addict Web Studios is offline Addict Web Studios
Status: Junior Member
Join date: Dec 2007
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Addict Web Studios is on a distinguished road

  Old

Well you know, I was only trying to explain in a way to people who know hardly nothing about html/xhtml coding in the easiest way I could, not going over everything they would not understand.


It's just that you have seen the early adopters of XHTML immediately reject the inline styles and assumed, wrongly, that HTML could not do that.
And i did not assume anything like that, I know that HTML can also do that, but I was letting this person know from my experience that I think it is easier to use xhtml with an external stylesheet than have any type of inline styles on a html page, even though html can also reject the inline styles.

02-10-2008, 11:15 PM
#44
Dr John is offline Dr John
Status: Junior Member
Join date: May 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 77
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Dr John is on a distinguished road

  Old

Okay, I'll accept that you didn't make that assumption, my error in assuming things myself. Sorry.

02-11-2008, 03:47 AM
#45
FreelancerStore is offline FreelancerStore
Status: Junior Member
Join date: Feb 2007
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

FreelancerStore is on a distinguished road

  Old

Originally Posted by Andrew R View Post
Thank god there is yet another coder who uses logic and common sense, and actually knows the differences between HTML and XHTML.
i agree with that. many people act like they know things when in fact they have no idea.

02-17-2008, 05:35 AM
#46
Virtualize is offline Virtualize
Status: Member
Join date: Nov 2007
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 120
iTrader: 2 / 100%
 

Virtualize is on a distinguished road

Send a message via AIM to Virtualize Send a message via MSN to Virtualize

  Old

Xhtml FTW... It's faster and just better.

Closed Thread  
Page 5 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

  Posting Rules  
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump:
 
  Contains New Posts Forum Contains New Posts   Contains No New Posts Forum Contains No New Posts   A Closed Forum Forum is Closed