Forum Moderators: open
I assume its correct that XHTML is basically a part of HTML (but in html there's still some other stuff that will probably no longer be correct in the future)...and thus XHTML can basically be considered HTML, too?
I know I could just google up a site, but maybe somebody knows a great resource of the top off their head?thx
FAQ: Choosing the best doctype for your site [webmasterworld.com]
Why most of us should NOT use XHTML [webmasterworld.com]
Reinventing HTML - W3C to restart HTML development [webmasterworld.com]
[edited by: encyclo at 12:44 pm (utc) on July 5, 2007]
[edit reason] fixed link [/edit]
But I always thought that XHTML was basically a "subset" (expression?) of HTML 4.01...the only difference between the two being that HTML 4.01 has some more stuff in it/some more stuff is allowed than it is in XHTML?
I always thought that was pretty much the only difference between the two?
P.S.: In case it explains that in the article forgive me for asking..Im a bit tired as its 3:41 AM here in Germany, but Ill read it tomorrow thx
XHTML1.0 is HTML4.01 reformulated in XML format. So it's exactly the same, but uses XML syntax rules instead of the SGML syntax rules HTML4.01 uses. Strict and Transitional variants are available in both.
XHTML1.0 can be served with the XHTML mime type "application/xhtml+xml" or with the HTML mime type "text/html". When served with the XHTML mime type to browsers that support it, any well-formedness error will cause the page to not display, displaying an error instead (the Yellow Screen of Death).
As IE does not support application/xhtml+xml, most people who use XHTML use the HTML mime type, which means their XHTML markup gets treated by browsers as malformed HTML.
XHTML1.1 is a modular reformulation of XHTML1 strict, and must be served with the XHTML mime type. Again, as IE does not support application/xhtml+xml, XHTML1.1 is impractical for public web sites.
XHTML2 is, to all intents and purposes, dead as a dodo ;)
HTH.
