Re: [wgo] XHTML1.0 Strict vs HTML 4.01

[Ricky Zhou <ricky zhou gmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Curtis Hovey wrote:
> Not So XHTML is more accessible to non-browsers. That aids spiders,
> search engines, reformers, and accessibility tools for the handicapped.
> The development libraries that work with XML/XHTML are preferred over
> SGML/HTML.
How is normal HTML inaccessible?  The differences between HTML and XHTML
are clearly outlined, and the only three ways that well-written HTML
differ (syntax-wise) is the DOCTYPE, self-closing tags, and the
capitalization of elements.  These two differences do not affect search
engine spiders/accessibility tools, which were obviously designed to be
able to handle HTML (maybe you're confusing this up with semantic
markup, which actually makes a difference).  Furthermore, it allows
well-formed HTML (which would obviously be a requirement) to be parsed
in the same way as XHTML.

> XHTML is the standard that tools are being built to use, unlike HTML
> 4.01. XHTML content will last longer than HTML 4.01 content.
Maybe XHTML will last longer, but we're not at the stage where XHTML is
even well supported yet (and when we are, the conversion between good
HTML and XHTML is completely painless/trivial.

> BUT if 4.01 was important to Microsoft, they would have done a decent
> job implementing it. 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 are not particularly important
> to MS, so we should not expect perfection.
I don't want perfection...  I want support.  Since IE doesn't support
XHTML sent with the correct mimetype, all browsers, IE included, will
interpret it as invalid HTML.  What's the point of that?

> Developers create OSes and browsers, Users choose screen resolutions and
> fonts. Planning and testing are a requirement, not an option. We must
> produce pages that meet standards, and work within those standards to
> address deficiencies with browsers.
OK, this is irrelevant since it applies to web development in general,
regardless of language.

> In general, more browsers are adopting the XHTML standard because that
> is what the advocacy groups drive us towards, and the tools for
> development support. There will be fewer HTML 4 browsers in the future.
Yes, but as I said, XHTML isn't supported well enough at this point.
When the time does come, it will be trivial to convert well-written HTML
to XHTML (ex. HTML Tidy can do it in a minute).  Until then, HTML
remains as the best supported language.

Note: Trust me, HTML 4 won't die even for *long* after major browsers
support XHTML.

> I cannot see any benefit for HTML 4.01. Designers and scripters must
> still craft CSS and Javascript to address the quirks of our target
> browsers. 
Benefit: It is better supported at this time.

> My validation an generation tools favor valid markup over
> ambiguous.
Who says that HTML can't be valid and unambiguous?  This is completely
twisting the argument with baseless assumptions about the HTML code that
we'll produce.

Thanks for actually trying to answer the questions about why HTML
wouldn't work for us.  Unfortunately, at this point, going for XHTML is
rushing ahead of where current browser compatibility stands.  Simply
put, IE doesn't support XHTML, and all of your arguments against HTML
here simply assume invalid/poorly written HTML (which we obviously won't
be dealing with).

A clarification that should be made:  Whenever you speak of XHTML sent
as text/html, it's not even interpreted as XHTML.  To ensure IE support,
it is impossible to have any of our code parsed as XHTML (I repeat, it
is rendered as invalid HTML)!

Given this fact, what reason do we have to write XHTML if it's never
even seen as XHTML?

(Now, sending XHTML as application/xhtml+xml would make a difference, as
the XHTML parser could assume well-formedness and gain a speed boost).

Ricky
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFdPJWiXbZ7NjlUcARAl+VAKDKmqry6kXMRoaXiC0z0bLFsj1WfgCgvilL
2l0FspT3teiOu+ejH/vQrNs=
=qp8A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----