David Corking on 2009-04-08
If this is right, I developed a bad habit, as far as I know based on a W3C manual, of writing XHTML self-closing tags in HTML to make it future-proof.
Gary Edwards's personal annotations on this page
Garyedwards bookmarked
on 2008-07-03
-
I believe that XHTML has many good potential applications, and I hope it continues to thrive as a standard. This is precisely why I have written this article. The state of XHTML on the Web today is more broken than the state of HTML, and most people don't realize because the major browsers are using classic HTML parsers that hide the problems. Even among the few sites that know how to trigger the XML parser, the authors tend to overlook some important issues. If you really hope for the XHTML standard to succeed, you should read this article carefully.
This link has been bookmarked by 38 people . It was first bookmarked on 15 Mar 2007, by kabs.
-
Arno HollosiCritical voice about using XHTML instead of HTML
-
David CorkingA maverick polemic (from about 2007), but some straightforward and harmless advice.
-
. Due to the rules of Null End Tags, a single slash in an empty element's start tag would close the tag right then and there, meaning
<br/is a complete and valid tag in HTML. As a result, if you have<br/>or<br />, a browser supporting Null End Tags would see that as abrelement immediately followed by a simple>character. Therefore, an XHTML page treated as HTML could be littered with unwanted > characters.
This problem is often overlooked because most popular browsers today are lacking support for Null End Tags,
-
-
HTML 4.01 Strict is still what most user agents and search engines are most accustomed to, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with using it if you don't need the added benefits of XML. HTML 4.01 is still a W3C Recommendation, and the W3C has even announced plans to further develop HTML alongside XHTML in the future.
-
David Corking on 2009-04-08
I don't see any harm in this advice, even if it appears to defy the standards committees.
-
soulgrind r on 2009-10-23
Me too. I'm still trying to nail down the exact best doctype, as everywhere has conflicting and possibly out of date advice... (and ie8 meta tags seems to make it even more confusing).
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ seems to be a good resource.
-
-
-
-
I believe that XHTML has many good potential applications, and I hope it continues to thrive as a standard. This is precisely why I have written this article. The state of XHTML on the Web today is more broken than the state of HTML, and most people don't realize because the major browsers are using classic HTML parsers that hide the problems. Even among the few sites that know how to trigger the XML parser, the authors tend to overlook some important issues. If you really hope for the XHTML standard to succeed, you should read this article carefully.
-
-
Alis DeeMore advocacy on why you should be using HTML rather than incorrectly-served XHTML.
-
Elijah LofgrenI should make it clear that I hope XHTML has a bright future on the Web. That is precisely why I have written this article. The state of XHTML on the Web today is more broken than the state of HTML, and most people don't realize because the major browsers
-
Jason MockI've seen similar arguments before (namely the hixie article), but this one is making me seriously reconsider as I can't guarantee that every page that I and the people that work for me is 100% valid XHTML and such invalidity can be dangerous, apparently.
-
Felipe LavínIf you're a web developer, you've probably heard about XHTML, the markup language developed in 1999 to implement HTML as an XML format. Most people who use and promote XHTML do so because they think it's the newest and hottest thing, and they may have hea
-
John StarkOpera
-
H GWhy to stick with HTML and not use XHTML
Public Stiky Notes
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ seems to be a good resource.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.