Web server

[Scott van Looy]

Today Tim did spake thusly:

> Zahn Daltocli:
>>> I'd use XHTML 1.1 personally. HTML is outdated. HTML4.01 has been around for
>>> YEARS (Nearly a decade) with no signs of HTML5 being released (they say it
>>> will, but looks very doubtful).
>>>
>>> XHTML is more interesting to play with, is up-to-date and allows more
>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/
>
> Scott van Looy:
>> Doesn't. XHTML 1 is simply HTML 4 rendered as XML - 1.1 doesn't have much
>> in the way of new features.
>
> That, plus:
>
> XHTML has to be served as if it were HTML, for the most prolific web
> browser in the world to render it.  If served as XHTML, it will only
> download it.  What's the point of writing XHTML pretending that it's
> HTML?

It's a better structure. Makes one more diciplined. It's just not the best 
thing to learn from scratch.

>  And doing so brings in other strange compatibility issues (MSIE's
> quirks/not-quirks modes are bad enough, already, likewise for other
> browsers playing similar silly tricks).

Not at all. If you add a doctype then your document is rendered in 
standards compliance mode.

>
> XHTML isn't html HTML.  There are other clients which don't handle
> XHTML, and throwing XHTML at them means they'll interpret it
> differently, according to the rules of HTML.  That extra slash, added to
> non-empty elements, actually has another meaning.

Doesn't

> e.g. XHTML <br/> is NOT the same as HTML <br>, it's really <br>> (a line
> break element, followed by a greater-than sign that should be visibly
> rendered).

In Netscape 4. Perhaps. It's why if you wish for compatibility you write 
it as <br />

> The original idea of XHTML would be that you (the author) either get it
> right, or the browser refuses to display it.  At long last, we'd be rid
> of crap web sites, because the author would immediately see that they'd
> cocked it up.  But, no.  We're back to square one with browsers still
> doing the tag soup analysis of XHTML/HTML, so we've lost that benefit.
> They'll keep on producing crap.

Unless you use a doctype, in which case it's all fine.

> As it stands, XHTML is a waste of time, and a new set of problems.

Not at all. If you create well formed XHTML you can be reasonably sure 
that all browsers will display it pretty much the same. If you create tag 
soup then you're stuck with quirks mode in IE6+ and Firefox/Mozilla and 
then you have to write specific CSS for each of them, which is vile.

Scott

-- 
Scott van Looy - email:me at ethosuk.org.uk | web:www.ethosuk.org.uk
site:www.freakcity.net - the in place for outcasts since 2003
PGP Fingerprint: 7180 5543 C6C4 747B 7E74  802C 7CF9 E526 44D9 D4A7
       -------------------------------------------
       |/// /// /// /// WIDE LOAD /// /// /// ///|
       -------------------------------------------

I think I am an overnight sensation right now!!