Forum Moderators: open
This is becoming a real pain in the arse. Years ago I hopped on the XHTML bandwagon. Then a couple of years ago those who were "in the know" suggested not using XHMTL due to how the content was being served incorrectly.
Why most of us should NOT use XHTML
[webmasterworld.com...]
A number of problems resulting from the use of the text/html MIME type in conjunction with XHTML content are discussed. It is suggested that XHTML delivered as text/html is broken and XHTML delivered as text/xml is risky, so authors intending their work for public consumption should stick to HTML 4.01, and authors who wish to use XHTML should deliver their markup as application/xhtml+xml.
The above is not happening. The WYSIWYG and Application Editors are generating XHTML served as text/html out of the box and it is wrong based on the above quote.
I have third party developers asking me for XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 Strict Templates and I'm fighting with them to use HTML 4.01, they won't do it. So, that means I'm going to have to succumb and continue with XHTML in its broken form.
If the above quote is fact, which I assume it is, why do developers and software manufacturers continue to produce broken XHTML? Why can't I have you, a third party developer, provide me with HTML 4.01 Strict coding? Why, why, why?
And, since I'm on Windows, guess what? Everything is freakin' XHTML coming from MS and I do mean everything. What are my options besides switching to Linux? ;) I've spent way too many hours converting stuff back to HTML 4.01 Strict only to run into issues moving forward due to third party involvement and XHTML being a standard amongst most developers these days. And, most of it is broken based on the above quote.
I have third party developers asking me for XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 Strict Templates and I'm fighting with them to use HTML 4.01, they won't do it. So, that means I'm going to have to succumb and continue with XHTML in its broken form.
But I may not fully understand your situation.
But I may not fully understand your situation.
WordPress Templates
But I may not fully understand your situation.
WordPress Templates
Ah, ok.
Unfortunately, the folks at WordPress have fallen for the old "XHTML is better than HTML" trick. They are misguided (IMO). For example, take this quote:
It’s designed to be - and is - the successor to HTML. Basically, it is better HTML.
1. It is NOT the successor to HTML
2. It is NOT *better* HTML
Alas, it's probably a lost cause trying to fight them on this. WordPress uses XHTML, so if you want to write templates for WordPress, you should probably write them as XHTML as well. Sad but true.
I've already fought tooth and nail on one project and it left a sour taste in everyone's mouth. They told me afterwards that future projects would be XHTML only and that they were not going to take a step backwards to meet my requirements of HTML 4.01 Strict.
What the hell am I supposed to do? I want to do it right, but I am far outnumbered by those who want to do it wrong. :(
Sadly, I am biting the bullet and going back to XHTML on those projects that require it due to third party issues. I can't invest that amount of time in QC trying to revert stuff back to HTML 4.01 Strict, its not worth the time and effort based on what I'm seeing.
[edited by: pageoneresults at 8:41 pm (utc) on Oct. 4, 2007]
I have made no secret of my opinion of wrongly using XHTML. However, why fight city hall, as it were. Tell your superiors that it is wrong and they persist, let them no you will not be responsible if and when and does not work right.
Marshall
Ah, but it is not only WordPress.
No, that's quite right. Drupal and TYPO3 have gone that way too--the latter in spite of a few strenuous protests from the community. It's especially weird that a tool like TYPO3 should be incapable of outputting HTML 4.01 without post-processing, since the core of the application really ouputs comparatively little markup in the first place...
-b
Sadly, I am biting the bullet and going back to XHTML on those projects that require it due to third party issues.
You've made the right decision. Using XHTML syntax, with a
text/htmlIronically, the "XHTML is evil" discourse has had the effect of actually neutralizing the problem with XHTML in that is is no longer considered as a step on a development path leading to ultra-strict XML handling of web content. the XHTML2 process is dead in the water, HTML5 will get there in time.
In the meanwhile, other issues such as table-free CSS layouts, validity, cross-browser support and accessibility all are more important than the choice between XHTML and HTML syntax. Those battles are much more worthwhile of your time and energy.
So use HTML when you can - and when you can't, use good clean XHTML syntax and remind yourself that XHTML versus HTML is simply not as critical an issue as it's sometimes made out to be. Choose practicality over zealotry every time. ;)
You've made the right decision. Using XHTML syntax, with a text/html mime type, validated and table-free is a good, safe option. Yes, it's not ideal, but you have to choose your battles sometimes.
Thanks encyclo, your support is much appreciated. :)
Now, which of the three major DOCTYPEs should I strive for?
XHTML 1.0 Transitional
XHTML 1.0 Strict
XHTML 1.1 Strict
And, should I even be considering these?
XHTML Basic 1.0
XHTML Basic 1.1
W3C - Recommended list of DTDs
[w3.org...]
And ignore the suggested template on that W3C page - you should not use an XML prolog - this is to make sure your page remains IE6-friendly. :)
If the above quote is fact, which I assume it is, why do developers and software manufacturers continue to produce broken XHTML? Why can't I have you, a third party developer, provide me with HTML 4.01 Strict coding? Why, why, why?
Why, why, why would they need to? (see my other thread on this issue). I will consider converting back to HTML 4.01 when somebody can offer actual and practical reasons to switch.
And if I may ask you: What was the catalyst that caused you to decide to switch back to HTML 4? Was there a definitive reason?
