XHTML compliancy

[namida]

I checked my website using w3 and i got a lotttttt of error. Some of which I don't think it really mattered.

TO what extent does XHTML Compliancy matters?

Personally although I can do CSS and DHTML it's a bit of a hassle. I'm a full believer in the old HTML. Although I know there are things that you can't do with HTML for me it's much simple to use HTML which will show up the way I want it to anywhere.

Will HTML someday become unsupportable by browsers? I hope not.

I kind of like the way HTML is. I don't like seeing many <div>s around my code it made my code doubled and tripled and the effect is just the same since I'm not doing anything fancy.



Regards,

Namida

 

[RISTMO]

You could always just change your webpage to html and make it validate as such....There's no reason why you couldn't.......

Rick

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ristmo.com/

RISTMO Designs

http://www.arabchurch.com/

Arab Church

http://www.reference-guides.com/

Reference Guides

 

[jwenting]

You'd rather see all kinds of nested tables using dozens of colspan= attributes to position your content the way you want it than a few <div>s with positioning styles?

Weird.

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

Namida,

&quot;TO what extent does XHTML Compliancy matters?&quot;

It matters to you if you're interested in the things offered by the combination of XHTML and CSS, such as smaller file sizes, more versatile sites, code that is more robust and readable by a greater number of readers (machine and human), etc. I'm sure there are probably a few other benefits, but those were the ones, frankly, that sold me.

It doesn't matter if those things (and the other benefits of XHTML and CSS) don't matter to you.

The answer to this question pretty much depends on what you want to do with that coding-for-the-web thing. Do you just want to make a website or two, something that'll keep you employed at maintenance for a good long time?

Basically, compliance with industry and technological standards matters to you based on how much you feel like being compliant with industry and technological standards! This is a reflection of your professional attitude regarding your tools.

Right now, someone eschewing XHTML because it's missing some vital function has some weight, as there's not a lot of rock-solid compliance out there and there is a lot of manufacturer-specific functionality that people are married to.

Most of the time, even this excuse is lame because the manufacturer-specific things that people think aren't supported by CSS are, in fact, but they don't bother trying to learn.

Someone who avoids it because it's too hard to learn doesn't earn a lot of sympathy for me, as I'm dumb as a box of hair, yet I picked up the basics in a couple of days and let the validator help me further. (those error messages contain Valuable Teaching Data)

&quot;Will HTML someday become unsupportable by browsers?&quot;

Not looking forward to being dragged into the next rev?

I can search on the web and find a Logo interpreter and write a program in Logo that does some very useful things. 8)

Why did you start using HTML 4.0 compliant code? I mean, why not stick with 1.0?

Chances are, HTML 1.0 is still supported by browsers -- but the things you can do with it are kinda' dwarfed by the things you can do with later versions of HTML. Likewise HTML >> XHTML/CSS.

&quot;I don't like seeing many <div>s around my code it made my code doubled and tripled and the effect is just the same since I'm not doing anything fancy.&quot;

Then you're not doing it right. When I started converting one of my sites from HTML to XHTML/CSS to support the positioning and such, I saw approximately 4K per file just vanish like the ugly useless flab it was (let's see, 200 files x 4K = 1.6Meg). It made total sense to have a single CSS document controlling the look of the entire site (I want to change a font call, change it in one document). And when I fed it into Jaws (a reader for the blind), there was no problem!

So, you know, after experiencing that, I'm not too likely to downgrade my site to just-HTML!

Cheers,


Edward

&quot;Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!&quot; -- inventor of the cat door

 

[RISTMO]

I personally prefer XHTML, but if you use valid HTML 4.0 with CSS, how much different would it be than XHTML 1.0 with css? Really? I think they're fairly similar, except for the few xhtml standards.....closing tags, lowercase, etc.

Rick

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ristmo.com/

RISTMO Designs

http://www.arabchurch.com/

Arab Church

http://www.reference-guides.com/

Reference Guides

 

[ksbrace]

Here is an open source app that automatically converts html to xhtml and fixes *Most*, if not all of the xhtml validation errors:

http://users.rcn.com/creitzel/tidy.html#tidyui

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

RISTMO: I personally prefer XHTML, but if you use valid HTML 4.0 with CSS, how much different would it be than XHTML 1.0 with css? Really?

If you're only looking at it from an HTML function standpoint, there's not a whole lot of difference, true.

XHTML is a little easier (my lame opinion, mind you) to troubleshoot because I don't have to, for example, figure out where this or that tag closes. It's a little more like troubleshooting a program.

So this is good.

(Admittedly, the lowercase letter restriction makes it slightly more of a pain to troubleshoot, until you get used to it. Now, I don't even notice.)

From the viewpoint of an XML parser, or something designed to use an XML-like parser to extract information from a website, it's a world of difference and that difference, as I understand it, will grow greater as more applications take advantage of XML. I'm not sayin' XML's the Grand Unified Theory, but it's damn handy and will only continue to be more handy. Having a web page that can be easily parsed by an XML reader is A Good Thing.

If you're only making pretty-picture websites, mostly static pages, etc., then using HTML for your content and CSS for formatting is simply smart and efficient. If you're going to be building things that have databases behind 'em, or that have to exchange data around a bunch of different databases, or that will ever be read by databases or that will ever be read by XML parsers of one kind or another, then it's advantageous to start thinking in that direction.

And finally, everything I have to do with my web pages, I can do using XHTML Transitional (so far) and HTML parsers handle that perfectly well. Vice-versa is not true. If nothing else mattered to me, that would.

At least, that's my understanding. I am often wrong.

Cheers,


Edward

&quot;Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!&quot; -- inventor of the cat door

 

[RISTMO]

My

http://www.arabchurch.com

website is completely database driven. It's XHTML, but it was originally HTML 4.0. I only &quot;upgraded&quot; because I was curious ;-). I DO like XHTML better, mainly because of everything being uniform, I like having everything lowercase (except for onChange or onLoad, etc...). It makes it a lot easier for me to edit other people's code. I know that what you mean by &quot;database&quot; and data extraction is not quite what I mean, but unless you're streaming info for other users, I think that HTML is fine, for the most part, although I prefer XHTML .

Rick

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ristmo.com/

RISTMO Designs

http://www.arabchurch.com/

Arab Church

http://www.reference-guides.com/

Reference Guides

 

[namida]

Alright
THank you all for all the great answers..

I've looked at some of the really nice websites with CSS, and I do think it's cool.

I tried saving the html and the css .. like the one in css zen Garden. But when I view it in my Dreamweaver it looks a mess.

Does this usually happen?

What is a good CSS XHTML WYSYWIG Editor? (one that does not confuse me.

I don't like Frontpage (somehow).

I like handcode editing actually but when it comes to layer and pixel stuff it's nice to have something to look at instead of keep on saving and viewing.



Regards,

Namida

 

[jemminger]

ristmo,

technically even the event handler attributes should be lowercase as they are in js &quot;onload&quot; vs &quot;onLoad&quot;



=========================================================
try { succeed(); } catch(E) { tryAgain(); }
-jeff

http://www.jeffemminger.com

 

[RISTMO]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that I used to use onLoad instead of onload and that that was the only attribute I liked to capitalize .

Rick

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ristmo.com/

RISTMO Designs

http://www.arabchurch.com/

Arab Church

http://www.reference-guides.com/

Reference Guides

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

namida,

You know, I prefer coding using Notepad, but I also tend to use Editpad Lite. I keep Mozilla and IE open on the file I'm editing and I just save and hit f5 on each of the browsers to see. It's turned out to be so much simpler than some application trying to read my mind and write code for me that I have to go in and edit anyway.

I've heard there are a few good editors out there that don't populate code with a bunch of stuff that is generic, but I'm a total Luddite, plus I can write like lightning, so I haven't done that much exploring.

Cheers,


Edward

&quot;Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!&quot; -- inventor of the cat door

 

[namida]

Thx.

Actually what I really meant by my first question (post) was.. does it matter to the User if the site is not xhTML compliant?

Does anyone know the situation where the user would really care what we are using?

From the coder point of view I've seen a lot of answers but I also want to know from the users point of view.



Regards,

Namida

 

[MrBelfry]

In my experience there are many types of users to the websites I create. Some users want loads of pictures, some want fancy flash things, some want something else. Very few people say &quot;Wow I looked at your site in Netscape 4 and it rendered perfectly!&quot; or &quot;Your navigation is so intuitive!&quot;. They would of course complain if your navigation was pants.

I have never met any one who refuses to look at a site if it is not XHTML compliant. Would you not read a site if it wasn't XHTML compliant? You probably couldn't care less. However XHTML forces you to code to a high standard making it easier for other people and media(like mobiles and PDA's etc) to read your code. I think these are compelling reasons to use XHTML. It is not a huge amount of extra effort to do things properly.

MrBelfry

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

Of course there are user issues.

File size = bandwidth = speedy pages. Sure, using XHTML and HTML, anyone can write a hog, but at the moment, when I see that XHTML tag on a page, I tend to think it was hand-built, which usually means that I'm dealing with a pro who makes a slim page.

If your user needs the functionality of a cross-database website and that functionality is better implemented using XML, then they're going to be happy.

Next-of-kin are users, too, such as the person who has to maintain the site after you leave. They'll be happy if your code is easy to read and follows at least one actual standard.

Another type of user is the one who sees something that works well and wants to know how to build that themselves. In that situation, it's nice to make your examples good.

Anything that makes sure the website works is good for the user. If the user comes in using Mozilla and your fully HTML-compliant code has a &quot;best used with Internet Explorer&quot; sticker on it (really or virtually by dint of being otherwise unusable), that's a negative outcome.

From a coding standpoint, I see it this way: There's no reason I have to force myself to think clearly, organize my site and pages, and assure compliance with standards. But I do so anyway.

Cheers,


Edward

&quot;Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!&quot; -- inventor of the cat door