Re: XHTML Support?

Post #197,056

3/3/05 4:08:16 PM

Re: XHTML Support?

First, scary technical details:

\r\n\r\n

It really depends on what you mean by "support". For example, Internet Explorer 6 doesn't properly render the <q> element, so it can't be said to "support" even HTML 4.01. And Mozilla-based browsers lack support for soft hyphens, which means they don't "support" HTML 4.01 either.

\r\n\r\n

As for XHTML, well, XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 are element-for-element identical, but that doesn't mean anything. In theory XHTML is an XML application and should be served with a MIME-type of [link|http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/|application/xhtml+xml], but (surprise) IE doesn't support that. Some people (myself included) sniff the HTTP Accept header and send application/xhtml+xml to supporting browsers. But those browsers are sometimes spotty in their support -- for example, Mozilla still doesn't (as far as I know) properly report character-encoding mismatches as XML well-formedness errors.

\r\n\r\n

To be perfectly strict, there is no browser currently in existence which supports XHTML 1.0 properly, let alone 1.1. But there's also no browser in existence which supports HTML 4.01 (Safari and Opera have their own issues).

\r\n\r\n

Now, with that said, you can rely on browsers to "understand" XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 just fine; you won't notice a difference unless you decide to be ultra-strict, and then you'll know enough to work around it anyway (I posted a [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/11/3/185120/250/27#27|partial guide] to some of the changes you need to make as a comment on k5 a while back). There is a trend toward using XHTML 1.0 these days (with a MIME-type workaround or without) simply because it's perceived as "the future", but really either one is perfectly acceptable. You are far more likely to run into cross-browser problems with CSS and JavaScript than with HTML.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #197,076

by Another Scott

3/3/05 5:51:39 PM

+3. Post here more often.

Post #197,105

by JayMehaffey

3/3/05 8:59:45 PM

Re: XHTML Support?

As for XHTML, well, XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 are element-for-element identical, but that doesn't mean anything. In theory XHTML is an XML application and should be served with a MIME-type of application/xhtml+xml, but (surprise) IE doesn't support that. Some people (myself included) sniff the HTTP Accept header and send application/xhtml+xml to supporting browsers. But those browsers are sometimes spotty in their support -- for example, Mozilla still doesn't (as far as I know) properly report character-encoding mismatches as XML well-formedness errors.

Well, that answers my question. That is more work then I'm willing to put in on something that isn't going to get me much reward anyway. Guess I'll im for 4.01 strict and see how long before the art designers start throwing invalid HTML in.

Jay

Post #197,107

by drewk

3/3/05 9:12:46 PM

Oh they already have, they just haven't shown you yet

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #197,112

by static

3/3/05 10:04:36 PM

There are numerous validators around.

Pick one, install it locally, customise it appropriately, and make it a condition of release that the page validates.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #197,356

by JayMehaffey

3/6/05 10:12:00 AM

Can't

My boss is the art designer I'm worried about, so I'm going to lose the argument about forcing HTML standards. He is attached to using Dreamweaver to layout the pages, and Dreamweaver has a wide range of HTML abusive things it does.

Jay

Post #197,366

by Arkadiy

3/6/05 11:57:55 AM

Write some script

to fix the known crap from Dreamweaver?

--

And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?

-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein

Post #197,140

by ubernostrum

3/4/05 2:04:39 AM

What CMS are you using?

There are several freely-available products which will coerce user input to valid HTML or XHTML, and as for the art designers, well, you never have to tell them that you replaced their HTML with something valid...

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #200,964

by tuberculosis

3/28/05 6:30:34 PM

We have started a quality push for our html

Largely spurred by our ramp up of fancy JavaScript.

My pitch to make this a front burner issue is based on the idea that, when faced with bad html, browser parsers will "keep on chugging" and make guesses about tag termination. Different browsers make different guesses. This results in differnt DOM structures for the same page. Different DOM structures freaks out the JavaScript on dynamically updated (AJAX style) pages and renders them unusable. We now spend 5-10 times the effort to clear QA because of JS errors caused by bad HTML. So to lower costs and improve agility, we must start validating our html using [link|http://validator.w3.org|http://validator.w3.org]

"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"   --Mark Twain

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."   --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."   --George W. Bush

Post #201,017

by pwhysall

3/29/05 1:06:31 AM

Excellent, Smithers.

As a frequent user of your employer's website (and Ben's employer's site, too), I welcome any initiative to make it work better and/or faster.

Welcome to IWETHEY!