HTML 4.0 vs XHTML 1.1

[boogyman]

I was just wondering where I could find some literature about IE not supporting XHTML ?

[djr33]

Google, I suppose. But I'll answer simply... it doesn't support it. Something like 70% of web users (every source has a different answer, from 30-90%) use IE, so..... it isn't good yet.

XML format is good for many things like itunes playlists, data, and even xhtml, except that xhtml isn't supported yet.

When it is, it may be a good idea to use it, but older versions of IE will still hold many people back (I'm sticking with IE6, since 7 annoys me, so I'm sure people will stick with 7 over 8 for a while).

I do know that xhtml is next, rather than html 5.0, but then again, who knows what will happen by the time that IE turns around. See the thread on Web 2.0... I have no info on that, but with things like that, I'm not sure if I'd rely on xhtml catching on any time soon, and it might just be passed up for a newer technology.

I don't know much about xhtml, so I'll just leave it at that. Note that all of the above reasons are unrelated to the quality/functionality of xhtml vs html, but I think they outweight its possible advantages.

Or, just make your site for firefox only and it'll be better for the internet world anyway ;) (Of course I'm kidding as sites like this are annoying and limit your possible visitors, though you could consider this as an option for specific projects, such as something for an office, etc.)

[jscheuer1]

I too am not totally versed in these matters but, just having an XHTML DOCTYPE doesn't mean that your document is being served as xml. This generally requires an additional header before the DOCTYPE. One like:


<?xml version="1.0"?>

Once you have that and the server is capable of serving the page as xml/XHTML, and if your code is valid XHTML (and perhaps even if it is not), IE will not parse your page at all. Even if the server isn't capable, IE may still not parse.

So, unless you really need xml/XHTML for what you are doing, you are better of writing valid HTML 4.01 Strict. If and when the time comes that it needs to be converted to XHTML, the process will be relatively simple.

However, I for one cannot imagine anytime too soon where XHTML will be required for general web presentation, although if certain elements get their way and as is rumored, the internet is split into two with one part being high end and the other being low end, XHTML may be required for the high end portion.

[boogyman]

yes I know that its not supported, I was wondering where I could find the documentation / literature / explanation ????
At the present time I am writing in HTML 4.01 Strict because I am not designing anything for the portable web

my professor and I got into a discussion about it, and I was just wondering if someone knew where the documentation is ? and from what I have been told, XHTML is trying to bridge the gap between general web, and portable web (eg PDA)


When it is, it may be a good idea to use it, but older versions of IE will still hold many people back (I'm sticking with IE6, since 7 annoys me, so I'm sure people will stick with 7 over 8 for a while). Yah I always try to make my scripts backwards compatible to 2 versions; IE7 is so ugly and very annoying, but that is Bill Gates for yah. I only use IE6 & 7 for testing purposes, I use Fx as my main browser.


Once you have that and the server is capable of serving the page as xml/XHTML, and if your code is valid XHTML (and perhaps even if it is not), IE will not parse your page at all. Even if the server isn't capable, IE may still not parse.
IE 5 doesn't parse it? IE6 parses it, but I am sure that its only because of the bugs.



Web 2.0


However, I for one cannot imagine anytime too soon where XHTML will be required for general web presentation, although if certain elements get their way and as is rumored, the internet is split into two with one part being high end and the other being low end, XHTML may be required for the high end portion.

I am assuming you are talking about Web2.0 John? And yah, it probably wont be highly used until 2-3yrs after it is out, in which time that it will probably be 2/3 versions in

[jscheuer1]

Both XHTML and HTML 4.01 allow for Media Dependencies in style to support portable devices.

A true xml/XHTML page will not parse in any IE version. You will get the open or save as dialogue box.

The w3c.org site is a good resource for information on this:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=portable+devices&sa=Go&cof=T&#37;3Ablack%3BLW%3A72%3BALC%3A%23ff3300%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FIcons%2Fw3c_home%3BLC%3A%23000099%3BLH%3A48%3BBGC%3Awhite%3BAH%3Aleft%3BVLC%3A%2366006 6%3BGL%3A0%3BAWFID%3A0b9847e42caf283e%3B&sitesearch=www.w3.org&domains=www.w3.org

[Twey]

yes I know that its not supported, I was wondering where I could find the documentation / literature / explanation ????What documentation/literature/explanation? IE doesn't support it. At all. There's nothing to write about, except maybe Microsoft's motives behind such a move.
IE 5 doesn't parse it? IE6 parses it, but I am sure that its only because of the bugs.No it doesn't. IE7 doesn't either. XHTML is similar enough in structure, syntax, &c. to HTML that if you send it with a text/html MIME type (as you are obviously doing), most browsers will successfully error-correct it into HTML. However, don't be fooled: that's not XHTML, it's invalid HTML. As such, you can't use any XHTML features, XHTML rules don't apply, and you lose all the advantages of using XHTML, with the added drawback that your code becomes reliant upon error-correction to function.
just having an XHTML DOCTYPE doesn't mean that your document is being served as xml. This generally requires an additional header before the DOCTYPE. One like:
<?xml version="1.0"?>That's an XML prologue, not a header. It's not necessary: it provides metadata about the document, such as the version of XML to be used and the character encoding used (for offline files). On the Web, this doesn't really matter: the DOCTYPE will (I believe) determine the version of XML used to parse the document, and the character encoding will be the one that must be sent by the server along with the MIME type. The former method of determining character coding will be overridden by the latter.
And yah, it probably wont be highly used until 2-3yrs after it is out, in which time that it will probably be 2/3 versions inBy "it," do you mean XHTML or "Web 2.0?" The XHTML 1.0 specification has been a W3C Recommendation since 2000 (one month and two days after HTML 4.01), and has since been revised in 2002. I wouldn't hold your breath for XHTML 3.0 (or even 2.0, for that matter, although that's been under work for quite some time now).

[jscheuer1]

Both XHTML and HTML 4.01 allow for Media Dependencies in style to support portable devices.

A true xml/XHTML page will not parse in any IE version. You will get the open or save as dialogue box.

The w3c.org site is a good resource for information on this:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=portable+devices&sa=Go&cof=T%3Ablack%3BLW%3A72%3BALC%3A%23ff3300%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FIcons%2Fw3c_home%3BLC%3A%23000099%3BLH%3A48%3BBGC%3Awhite%3BAH%3Aleft%3BVLC%3A%2366006 6%3BGL%3A0%3BAWFID%3A0b9847e42caf283e%3B&sitesearch=www.w3.org&domains=www.w3.org


Quote:just having an XHTML DOCTYPE doesn't mean that your document is being served as xml. This generally requires an additional header before the DOCTYPE. One like:
Code:
<?xml version="1.0"?>

That's an XML prologue, not a header. It's not necessary

Well, in my experience it is, at least on some servers. It is a header, the more technically precise term probably is prologue, I'll trust you on that. We agree that if the page is served as xml/XHTML, it won't parse in IE, period. From what I understand from experience, it may - contrary to what I've often heard, if parsed as HTML still adhere to 'almost standards' mode.

[mwinter]

I too am not totally versed in these matters but, just having an XHTML DOCTYPE doesn't mean that your document is being served as xml.

Correct. Only the HTTP Content-Type header determines that.



Once you have that and the server is capable of serving the page as xml/XHTML,

Careful: XML (text/xml or application/xml) and XHTML (application/xhtml+xml) content types are not exactly interchangeable in this discussion. MSIE does recognise XML, but not XHTML. However, it won't render an XHTML document served as XML like XHTML served as HTML, even if the content is equivalent.



yes I know that its not supported, I was wondering where I could find the documentation / literature / explanation ????

I think there have been blog entries from the IE development team that discussed XHTML in IE.



... from what I have been told, XHTML is trying to bridge the gap between general web, and portable web (eg PDA)

As I recall, WAP 2 can utilise XHTML documents directly, but they have to use the Basic profile. I don't know how feasible that is, though - I would hope content negotiation would be acceptable for catering to mobile devices. Even so, that still doesn't justify serving XHTML to the general public.



IE 5 doesn't parse it? IE6 parses it, but I am sure that its only because of the bugs.

Processing XHTML as HTML in any browser only "works" because of "bugs" in HTML implementations: browsers don't process HTML as an application of SGML as it technically is.





<?xml version="1.0"?>

That's an XML prologue, not a header.

That's actually the XML declaration. The prologue is the XML declaration plus the document type declaration.



the DOCTYPE will (I believe) determine the version of XML used to parse the document,

The version of XML is separate from the document type.



From what I understand from experience, [XHTML] may - contrary to what I've often heard, if parsed as HTML still adhere to 'almost standards' mode.

Assuming I remember correctly, more-or-less any unrecognised document type will put IE into Standards mode when processing HTML.

[boxxertrumps]

Firefox is more up to standards, more aestetically pleasing, and has tons of free and usefull addons available. it comes with soo many usefull things, so you have almost everything you need right out of the... tarball...
the only thing preventing a widespread , overnight type of adoption is it is not what people are "used to", and a few sites block anything but IE. also, i am fairly sure it uses an xml processor when it comes to properly servered xhtml.

As for xhtml, it's code has to be more regular, so it doesn't need a large error corrector to be veiwed, hence why the same document as valid xhtml is more quickly rendered than a valid html doc, and all that needs to happen is an error when the code is irregular. (greatly helping the error fixing process.)

[Twey]

the only thing preventing a widespread , overnight type of adoption is it is not what people are "used to", and a few sites block anything but IE.Both of these are symptoms of a cause, which is that IE is distributed with Windows.

[mwinter]

Careful: XML (text/xml or application/xml) and XHTML (application/xhtml+xml) content types are not exactly interchangeable in this discussion. MSIE does recognise XML, but not XHTML. However, it won't render an XHTML document served as XML like HTML served as HTML, even if the content is equivalent.

It's probably already understood that I meant "[IE] won't render an XHTML document served as XML like XHTML served as HTML, even if the content is equivalent", but I thought I should make the correction clear.



As for xhtml, it's code has to be more regular, so it doesn't need a large error corrector to be veiwed,

That is a fallacy. XHTML, as an application of XML, must be well-formed. However, there is no processing requirement that states that XHTML has to be valid. The difference is that whilst any XML processor must abandon parsing upon encountering a malformed document, only a validating XML processor has to respond to an invalid document - and then only at the user's request. It is not unreasonable to expect a non-validating processor, such as those featured in Firefox and Opera, to perform error correction.



hence why the same document as valid xhtml is more quickly rendered than a valid html doc,

It may be more quickly parsed as the grammar is simpler, but that doesn't necessarily lead to quicker rendering. Firefox, for example, won't render an XHTML document until the entire thing has been received and parsed unlike the HTML counterpart which can render incrementally.