XHTML or XML for SEO ?

[ThomasJSmart]

any definitive answer on which is better for SEO ?

nicely formatted XHTML with a decent seo friendly structure (limited JavaScript, content near the top, much internal linking, etc.)

OR

XML page with all content, including the main menus with urls to underlying pages. The XML would load an XSLT stylesheet for users but not sure if that is processed by search engines ?


Thomas

site |

http://thomassmart.com

/

http://thomassmart.hk

blog |

http://weblog.thomassmart.com

 

[spamjim]

Where has this question been asked before?

 

[ThomasJSmart]

i did a search for it over a year ago but couldnt really find any definitive answer then, wondering if anyone knows anything now.
back in 2004 they said it was the best thing since sliced bread but its gone kinda quiet on the topic since then, not sure what the latest generation of search engines are doing with xml.

site |

http://thomassmart.com

/

http://thomassmart.hk

blog |

http://weblog.thomassmart.com

 

[spamjim]

You can use both to aid SEO but they are not necessarily equal.

XHTML is like (or slightly derived from) XML but they cannot be interchanged. XML and XSLT would be converted to XHTML/HTML before it is sent to a browser.

XML may be used for sitemaps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_map

Where are you figuring in the relevance of HTML5 in your question?

 

[ThomasJSmart]

xml/xslt can be delivered as xml/xslt to the browser, it doesnt have to be converted first.

and im not talking about just the sitemap, the entire site would be xml (xml extension for each and every page, like: index.xml)

html5 is not really relevant at this point, its just about having content displayed to search engines as xml or xhtml

would, for example, google read an xml tree and understand its contents and be able to follow links to other pages? i am assuming it would not process the xslt - it shouldnt need to as with proper coding all the content should be in the xml.

in an xml tree you could have a much better content to code ratio and it would be much easier to have important content at the top. sounds like good seo points to me, if google can read the xml nicely.










site |

http://thomassmart.com

/

http://thomassmart.hk

blog |

http://weblog.thomassmart.com

 

[spamjim]

I'm probably working from old knowledge but I thought IE was no friend of XML+XSLT.

Google only sees about 34,000 xslt files.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=filetype:xslt

 

[ThomasJSmart]

its not great, latest version is a bit better. but it doesnt really matter with the intended audience of the site

site |

http://thomassmart.com

/

http://thomassmart.hk

blog |

http://weblog.thomassmart.com

 

[spamjim]

Google only sees about 34,000 xslt files.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=filetype:xslt

oops. One might better search for

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=filetype:xsl

Many of these files don't seem to be constructed properly and are misnamed as xsl/xslt. But it seems clear that they can be indexed and could tinker with intended results.

 

[ChrisHirst]

but not sure if that is processed by search engines ?

Last time I tested they didn't, just read the XML, although that was a couple of years ago and I haven't seen or read anything that suggests they now do.



Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

 

[ThomasJSmart]

well thats a good thing, the xsl file is like the css file, not sure google really needs to do anything with it.
as long as they parse the xml and follow the links contained in it.
guess i shall just have to experiment and see the result.

if it fails terribly i can always join the xml/xsl serverside and spit out xhtml


site |

http://thomassmart.com

/

http://thomassmart.hk

blog |

http://weblog.thomassmart.com

 

[ChrisHirst]

There are no "links" in an XML file. There may well be URI references but the are NOT "followed", as in used for the discovery of content or data that can be crawled and indexed.

The only exceptions to this are XML sitemaps which are in a format that the search engine software engineers have developed SPECIFICALLY for URL discovery.

RSS feeds despite being a 'known' and 'standardised' format are not used for URI discovery by search engines.

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

 

[ChrisHunt]

Sending XML+XSLT to user agents - whether they be search engine spiders or users' browsers - and hoping they'll know what to do with it seems like an unnecessary risk compared with sending them (X)HTML.

My definitive SEO advice would be not to take any risks that you don't have to take.

-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd