Forum Moderators: open
What happens when IE eventually supports application/xhtml+xml? I can assure you that a large percentage of current XHTML implementations will break. Who will the developers blame? The standard!
So this could be the real "Damocles sword"
Before starting to run like rats in a cage
do we have or do we foresee a schedule for the above to happen?
What happens when IE eventually supports application/xhtml+xml? I can assure you that a large percentage of current XHTML implementations will break.
This brings a question
any SEO "cost" related for changing a XHTML trans DTD? to a strict one or even from XHTML to strict HTML 4.01?
I do not think so but....
Mainly most of my sites are "strict" ready
but I have one that uses once target _blank
so I guess for the time being I will make them strict
and kill the _blank
This brings a question
any SEO "cost" related for changing a XHTML trans DTD? to a strict one or even from XHTML to strict HTML 4.01?
I do not think so but....
s that a joke? The page looks fine (like FireFox) in Safari on my machine.
No joke. It's just lines and lines of runon text, and a major portion of the content is simply not showing.
What version of Safari are you using? Mine is 1.3.2.
A Bridge To The Future - Information week, May 2000
Well here it is 6 years later, and even xhtml 1.0 is still in the "recommendation" stage. 1.1 seems to be still in the draft stage (after 5+ years), and the status of 2.0 seems to be doubtful at best - from all appearances 2.0 will not be backwards compatible with much existing content, which makes it essentially a dead horse.
I see a lot of blame being placed on the browser makers, but I wonder how much of that is actually due to basically nothing being done for 6 years to make it a true standard?
When XHTML first was proposed, there were about 1/20th as many websites as there are now I would guess. It is starting to look like events will bypass w3c...
Well here it is 6 years later, and even xhtml 1.0 is still in the "recommendation" stage. 1.1 seems to be still in the draft stage (after 5+ years)...
Yup, and in 2006 we're still stuck with (X)HTML1997. That's 9 years of wasted development time we'll never see again. 9 years FFS!
...and the status of 2.0 seems to be doubtful at best - from all appearances 2.0 will not be backwards compatible with much existing content, which makes it essentially a dead horse.
And, by implication, xhtml1 too. xhtml1 was always seen as an intermediate step towards xhtml1.1/xhtml2:
xhtml1.1 is a "pain in the ass with no demonstrable benefit...Now that I’ve had a taste of what it's [xhtml1.0] allegedly a stepping stone towards, I just can’t see the point." , Mark Pilgrim, 2003 [diveintomark.org]
"The [xhtml2] spec may have tremendous benefits, but I’ve been doing this work for a while and I can’t see any."Jeffrey Zeldman, 2003 [zeldman.com]
"I think there needs to be a serious reconsideration of XHTML2 as an effort at all." Tantek Celik, 2003 [lists.w3.org]
"I do believe the whole thing should be, as it stands now, dropped and started again almost from scratch... I think that XHTML 2.0 is going to drastically increase the TCO of web sites... sorry to say, but XHTML 2.0 seems to me the live proof that something is going wrong at W3C", Daniel Glazman, 2003 [lists.w3.org]
To help repair the damage XHTML-advocacy has inflicted on the "web standards" movement (which I broadly support), the w3c may have to revise its entire approach to web page markup, or follow xhtml into irrelevance. That would be a disaster. I see no sign of the w3c recognising this.
</rant> :)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<tITLe>Suckiness test</TitlE>
</HEaD>
<boDy>
<P>Which language sucks? Here comes the answer:
<tAbLE><TR><td><!-- -- -->XHTML<!-- -- -->HTML<!-- -->!</TABLe>
<p>Undisputable. ©
</HtmL>...be valid in XHTML? No it wouldn't!
