Talk:XHTML

I do not think that the XHTML section of the XML Wikibook is extensive enough (or indeed capable of being extensive enough) to cover XHTML sufficiently. The section on media types, for example, does not do the subject justice. There is no mention whatsoever of application/xml dispite the fact that it is the most cross compatible media type nor is there any mention of the pitfalls of serving XHTML as HTML. Conversely, our section on media types includes a more comprehensive overview of the pros and cons of each and even includes a table which illustrates the how each layout engine interprets each media type. This is the kind of depth that a stand-alone XHTML book can reach with other XHTML subjects like semantic layouts, modularization, DTDs, HTML conversion, deprecated elements, namespaces, and syntax.

Yes the XML module is better written and organized, and yes, it does do a good job giving an overview of what XHTML is, but that doesn't mean that we can't match its quality while offering a more complete steadily-paced tutorial. In summation, I vote for sufficiency over efficiency.

Nadamt 23:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You don't get XHTML by just putting the right doctype in a HTML document and make sure it's formatted according XML standards [This is not true: an XHTML document is an XHTML document regardless of what common browsers do with it - RFC 2854 makes it clear that some XHTML documents can be served as text/html]. If the server sends it as text/html, it is still interpreted as HTML. The contenttype should be "application/xhtml+xml". And if you use that, many browser are in trouble.

http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Try this in IE6: http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/xhtml-style-script/examples/example-6.xhtml (one of the rare real XHTML pages on the web).

Since about 90% of the internet users still uses IE as a browser, it is not realistic to create real XHTML webpages for common purpose. And it's going to be that way for a couple of years. If you search on google for this webpage (for example this page: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Example+6+-+XHTML+1.0+Strict+as+application%2Fxhtml%2Bxml&btnG=Search), then you'll see the google says "File Format: Unrecognized".

Technically correct but as both IE6 (and IE5?) and Firefox display XHTML sent as text/html fine, why create pages using older standards which teach bad practices just so you can be correct with the contenttype?

As of now, I just don't like how the page here is set up. It seems like we're diving into the core XHTML tech too soon and not giving a real introduction to it. We just have a short synopsis, and bam! we've put tags and elements before their faces. Here's how I'd like to see it:

• Introduction to XHTML
  • Purpose
  • History
  • Differences from HTML /* jump here if they already know HTML and just want a diff */
• Syntax
  • How XML Works /* if they want to understand XHTML, first they have to get XML */
  • Basic Tags /* does this belong here? -- html, head, title, body, p, br */
• Your First XHTML Document
  • Code Listing /* not a real section, just the listing */
  • Understanding the Elements
• Links and the id Attribute

etc.

This way, I think there'll be less of a learning curve. (Oh, and the application/xhtml+xml thing too.) [ alerante | “” 13:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) ]

XHTML in IE is broken.

XHTML in Mozilla and Firefox is properly rendered as XHTML. Just 'View info' to see that it works.

Therefore, instead of changing this XHTML page to deal with IE's quirky interpretation of XHTML.

I propose we have a second page dealing with IE's quirks regarding XHTML.

If I write an article about unleaded gasoline, but your car does not function with unleaded gasoline, then we should write an article about your car. We should NOT delete a page which correctly describes unleaded gasoline.

IE quirks are definitely outside the scope of an article on standardized XHTML. There are a few problems here, honestly. One is that IE is arguably bad/terrible/horrendous software and the other is that W3C's standards are arguably byzantine and unnecessarily complicated. However, if the focus of this wikibook is XHTML, it should adhere to XHTML standards which are established by W3C, not by Microsoft. If the book is not about standardized XHTML, don't call it a book on standardized XHTML. I think this is a question of scope, not protocol. --banzaimonkey

If we're going to do a proper wikibook on XHTML, I suspect that it will need a sister volume on Cascading Style Sheets. Right now, it's hideously under-developed.

--Noah 17:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• GET
• CSS Programming

Learning all the tags and viewing local files with a web browser is nice and everything, but the whole point is to put stuff on the Internet.

I think it would be nice to explain how to get these ".html" files from your personal computer onto the Internet.

Is there some other wikibook that talks about uploading to a web server ?

There are lots of places to get free web hosting; would it be appropriate to list a few dozen in this wikibook? (Is there a more appropriate wikibook?)

--DavidCary 05:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Free Website Hosting
• free web site providers
• Free Website Providers for Business Webpages
• Free Website Hosting

As the note describes at the beginning of the page, I think a merging is necessary.

However, I'd have to say, overwhelmingly, that the XHTML (XML) page is much much better. It is far more thorough and descriptive. Perhaps what needs to be done is to look this over and compare it with the other page, finding any bits worthy of inclusion that cannot be found at XHTML (XML) and redirect this sucker over.

EDIT: 4/21/06 XML and XHTML are actually 2 different things. XML is used by such programs as MSN Messenger to store logs, while XHTML is more of an HTML encoding standard than an entirely different language. As such, merging this page wouldn't do much good, unless you want to link it through there.

207.114.130.130 22:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Web DesignerReply

This tutorial uses the word "tag" where it should read "element" or "element type" instead. One example is stating that XHTML documents are enclosed in an <html> tag. This is not the case.

I think it's rather bad that this module teaches bad practices. I've only read the first page, but I noticed this:

• Links like "click <a>here</a>" isn't any good at all. Rather than "Click <a>here</a> to go to Wikibooks.org", the module should rather say "Go to <a>Wikibooks.org</a>".
• Missing alt-text when introducing <img />. One'd better get it right from the beginning!

99%? Where was this statistic pulled from? The same place that the rabbit was?

I changed "completely" standards compliant, to "mostly" standards compliant. Mozilla is good, but it's not the best. Let's keep things objective here ;-).

59.92.142.69 13:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)-Rahul.Reply

While on the subject of objectivity, why are "we" reccomending only Mozilla Firefox? Are not there other browsers which properly render XHTML? Don't they deserve at least a mention?

Nadamt 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please, correct markup tags, 'b' and 'i' have be retired of your mental-dictionary.

• b was tranformed to 'strong'
• i was transformed to 'em'

Token / 200.158.231.244 09:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The "Tags and Elements" section should be rewritten. Elements are semantic structuring units; a valid XHTML document is composed of a hierarchy of elements conforming to an XHTML DTD. Tags are the syntax used to identify elements. An element has a name identifying its type, a start tag, possibly optional attributes, possibly optional content, and an end tag. The DTD specifies, for each element type, which attributes are allowed and required, and the content that is allowed. Attributes are specified in the start tag. An element with no content may start and end with the same tag (e.g. <br />). (Although for browser compatibility some elements like script should have explicit start and end tags.)

I added some pages, of course they a bit under developed but give it time. I agree that the page needs some organisation. I'll attempted this. Also some pictures would be nice (coding etc). --Grich 01:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that this book needs a complete re-write. It is written as if it expects the reader to be a professional in HTML. This book has to assume that the reader has never even heard of HTML and does not have any knowledge of this web stuff what-so-ever. --S.Örvarr.S 00:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply