XHTML vs HTML 4.01 Strict with CSS

[Jeremy_H]

Not to rehash the dead, but I have a burning XHTML question, and the most appropriate thread to reply too was too old to make a comment on, so I have to create a new thread. Old thread: [webmasterworld.com...]

I've got this idea nagging me that I need to replace my HTML 4.01 Strict that uses external CSS with XHTML. At first I thought I needed to replace it with XML, but I have since learned from that cited thread that it's actually XHTML that I'm thinking of.

However, it seems that there's no benefit of this, since one of the posted sites in that thread makes it seem that the only benefit is that "XHTML gives you the opportunity to write "well-formed" documents now, that work in all browsers and that are backward browser compatible!"

But isn't my HTML 4.01 Strict backward (and forward compatible)?

I'm not using anything like RSS, and I don't see how that can benefit my site. I don't understand my site being able to talk to other applications, or see how that could benefit my site.

I just have a simple resource site, and I'm confused if I should "upgrade" to XHTML or not.

I know I'm "fine" now, but wouldn't I be fine now too if my site was using HTML 3.0 Strict--but I'd see a benefit of upgrading from that.

Please help me sort my confusion. Thanks

[DanA]

upgrading html 4 strict to xhtml strict would be quite easy (unless you use flash or java, it will be changing the doctype, adding closing tags and having tags in lowercase, some styles to move)
you can have a look there :

[webmasterworld.com...]

[edited by: jatar_k at 6:46 am (utc) on Jan. 24, 2006]

[Robin_reala]

XHTML is a reformulation of HTML as an XML language. Simply changing the code won't bring you any of the benefits of XML (the ability to mix different namespaced languages, etc etc) unless you serve your XHTML pages with the MIME type application/xhtml+xml which IE doesn't support.

So unless you have a pressing need for XML compatibility, I would advise that you spend your time working on accessibility or usability instead - it'll help your users a lot more.

[Jeremy_H]

Thanks, both of you. You've helped me set my priorities.

DanA, I really liked the link you posted. I like how purists think that in my situation the most proper way is to use HTML, not XML.

Robin, accessibility and usability are very important to me. And seeing that XML might interfere with that (with the IE case), that helps me realize I just need to stay where I'm at. In HTML.

Thanks again.