PDA

View Full Version : Is XHTML really a standard?

dthomsen8
02-10-2006, 04:17 PM
Is XHTML really a standard? Of course, it is a formal standard, but is anyone paying attention?

My informal survey of large web sites indicates that the vast majority are not using XHTML.

The following web sites have either HTML 4x or no standard at all:

www.microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com)
www.adobe.com (http://www.adobe.com)
www.usps.gov (http://www.usps.gov)
www.harvard.edu (http://www.harvard.edu)
www.firefox.com (http://www.firefox.com)
www.icann.org (http://www.icann.org)
www.networksolutions.com (http://www.networksolutions.com)
www.parliament.uk (http://www.parliament.uk)
www.phila.gov (http://www.phila.gov)
www.gm.com (http://www.gm.com)
www.un.org (http://www.un.org)
www.google.com (http://www.google.com)

The following web sites have XHTML standards, as shown:

www.ebay.com (http://www.ebay.com)
<html xmlns:IE="#default"><head>

www.yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com) has:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

www.macromedia.com (http://www.macromedia.com) has:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> at

www.senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov) has:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

www.w3c.org (http://www.w3c.org) has:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

http://www.desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/ has:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"

I had to work fairly hard to find that many XHTML web sites. So, is it really a standard?
annc
02-11-2006, 12:41 AM
All the sites I'm responsible for are XHTML 1.0 strict.
dacoyle
02-11-2006, 06:03 AM
I had to work fairly hard to find that many XHTML web sites. So, is it really a standard?

XHTML is a standard and is more than a few years old, but browsers and the public were much slower to catch up with the latest standards. We only started using XHTML at my work place about a year ago when our statistics showed almost no version 3 browsers and a very small percentage of version 4.

Once our boss realized that folks were used to sites like amazon.com not looking "right" to them, it was OK to start following current standards. Trouble is, folks that care about standards and validation are rare. Most of us are here in this forum. ;->
dthomsen8
02-11-2006, 06:59 AM
Once our boss realized that folks were used to sites like amazon.com not looking "right" to them, it was OK to start following current standards. Trouble is, folks that care about standards and validation are rare. Most of us are here in this forum. ;->

Perhaps the sites in your department are XHTML, but there are plenty of federal government sites which are not.

Why don't really big, really rich companies insist on having standards? Plenty of them have no DOCTYPE or the equivalent at all. Most of those who do have a standard are back on HTML 4.01 or earlier.

Perhaps we can let GM or the USPS slide, but what about Microsoft, or Adobe? Maybe we should start writing to Webmasters at such sites (when we can find them) and ask them about standards?
Kelvyn
02-11-2006, 02:09 PM
but what about Microsoft, or Adobe? Maybe we should start writing to Webmasters at such sites (when we can find them) and ask them about standards?

But if Microsoft used standard XHTML strict on their site it probably wouldn't work with Internet Explorer.... :D
Michael Rowley
02-11-2006, 02:41 PM
Kelvyn:

'But if Microsoft used standard XHTML strict on their site it probably wouldn't work with Internet Explorer'

Microsoft's 'site' is on a rather large scale, and parts are several years old. The scale of Microsoft's site and the sites of several others are more than a little different from the sites designed by an individual, and the latter probably should comply the latest standards.
Kelvyn
02-13-2006, 09:14 AM
Microsoft's 'site' is on a rather large scale, and parts are several years old.

It is a very big site and will undoubtedly cost a lot to update. There are problems, however, with even the newest areas of the MS site. Attached is a screen shot of the IE7(beta2) view of a MS page promoting IE7..... Not a CSS error, but a good old JS error, which has been causing much myrth in certain webmaster forums.
dthomsen8
02-13-2006, 09:41 AM
Not a CSS error, but a good old JS error, which has been causing much myrth in certain webmaster forums.

So Uncle Bill and his elves sometimes make mistakes?

Who would have guessed?

;)
Michael Rowley
02-13-2006, 10:20 AM
Kelvyn

'view of a MS page promoting IE7'

I'm surprised Microsoft should be promoting a product that hasn't been released yet.
Kelvyn
02-13-2006, 11:10 AM
I'm surprised Microsoft should be promoting a product that hasn't been released yet.
This is the second beta version of IE7 to go on public release. They are attracting publicity for the product as well as relying on feedback from those who test it on a variety of sites, and to aid web developers in understanding potential problems once it is in final release version.

BTW, anyone thinking of installing it should be careful. Although it is pretty stable it does overwrite previous IE installations.
iamback
02-13-2006, 12:01 PM
Attached is a screen shot of the IE7(beta2) view of a MS page promoting IE7..... Not a CSS error, but a good old JS error, which has been causing much myrth in certain webmaster forums.Reminds me of the time I had to do a clean reinstall of Windows NT 4 (which came with IE2), when it was still fully supported. I was somewhat surprised to find it was not possible to use IE2 to go to the MS web site to upgrade to the greatest and latest, then IE4. (Can't remember what I did, I think I managed to get a magazine cover CD, or maybe I used Opera :D)
BobRoosth
02-13-2006, 08:01 PM
Reminds me of the time I had to do a clean reinstall of Windows NT 4 (which came with IE2), when it was still fully supported. I was somewhat surprised to find it was not possible to use IE2 to go to the MS web site to upgrade to the greatest and latest, then IE4. (Can't remember what I did, I think I managed to get a magazine cover CD, or maybe I used Opera :D)
Just try to get the MS update page to work with Firefox!

I recently did a clean install of Win2K on a system. Had to be very careful in which order I did updates because the MS site doesn't really like IE 5.0 any more.

ActiveX makes some nice things possible, but really don't like the security issues that come with it.
iamback
02-14-2006, 12:51 AM
I recently did a clean install of Win2K on a system. Had to be very careful in which order I did updates because the MS site doesn't really like IE 5.0 any more.Same thing then - stupid!

ActiveX makes some nice things possible, but really don't like the security issues that come with it.Same here: I have it permanently disabled and set it to "prompt" only (temporarily) if I really, really need it.
dacoyle
02-14-2006, 03:23 PM
Perhaps the sites in your department are XHTML, but there are plenty of federal government sites which are not.

Why don't really big, really rich companies insist on having standards? Plenty of them have no DOCTYPE or the equivalent at all. Most of those who do have a standard are back on HTML 4.01 or earlier.

Perhaps we can let GM or the USPS slide, but what about Microsoft, or Adobe? Maybe we should start writing to Webmasters at such sites (when we can find them) and ask them about standards?

Dave,

The reality is, not many people even know about the W3C or care about the standards. But it's slowly changing, I think. I had the benefit of working for a board member of the Web Standards Project (http://webstandards.org/) for over three years so my training is to the standards more than most designers, other than most of the regulars here. Not sure where the other regulars got their training... but I'd be interested in hearing about it.

The web is still relatively young. And constantly changing. I know that I only know a very small percentage of all things web but I know more than most people I know. My former manager is the best expert I've known, but even he doesn't know it all. Very few people know it all as it's gotten so complex.

As laws change, those of use that do know the standards might benefit on our rates. That's my hope, at least.
ktinkel
02-14-2006, 04:22 PM
Is XHTML really a standard? Speaking accurately, it is a proposed standard. It is not an ISO standard, for example.

But it attempts to create order out of chaos. It is supported, btw, by Microsoft, at least on paper.

And the only thing competing with it is MSIE6, a “standard” that even Microsoft doesn’t intend to continue supporting.

So, yeah: Among reasonable people with practical aspirations, it is indeed a standard.
iamback
02-14-2006, 08:24 PM
Speaking accurately, it is a proposed standard. It is not an ISO standard, for example.In that sense it's not a proposed standard either. W3C doesn't "propose" their standards to any national standards organization, or to ISO. In a more practical sense, the W3C is itself a standards body - and XHTML a real standard. Terminology differs - a W3C standard is called a "Recommendation" - but that is just jargon (in a very real sense ISO standards are recommendations, too).

That said, there is such a thing as ISO HTML. I've only ever encountered one person who had to use that in his company, but it exists, and (apparently) is being used, too. It's a good deal more strict than HTML 4.01 strict (!), but some of its ideas are being incorporated in XHTML 2 (which is still a draft).
Richard Waller
02-15-2006, 12:04 AM
The web is still relatively young. And constantly changing.A parallel with cell phones. I gather the average life of a new phone is now 18 months and the really with-it users changing every six months. The old ones still work, last longer before recharge, and are more robust. And now the new phones with TV reception in the UK are required to have a TV licence and this more than doubles the price of the phone.

So all these smart new thingies are announced with great excitement for the Internet, are quickly superceeded. Thank goodness the old things still work.
dthomsen8
02-15-2006, 04:37 AM
So all these smart new thingies are announced with great excitement for the Internet, are quickly superceeded. Thank goodness the old things still work.

My Dreamweaver instructor said something about some obsolete HTML tags not working at some point in the future. I have my doubts that it will happen anytime soon, though.

It seems to me that the browser developers don't catch up with the latest standards before new ones are announced. Web development books still try to explain how to accomodate older Netscape browsers.

But to add to Richard's point about the older cell phones, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about larger cell phones being popular with the elderly, who have trouble working with the tiny buttons on tiny phones.
ktinkel
02-15-2006, 05:28 AM
… the W3C is itself a standards body - and XHTML a real standard. Terminology differs - a W3C standard is called a "Recommendation" - but that is just jargon (in a very real sense ISO standards are recommendations, too).

That said, there is such a thing as ISO HTML.Interesting. Fine points.

It seems to me only logical to accept W3C as a standard (if not The Standard) just because it is the only train in town! (At least for those of us who cannot use MSIE6.)
iamback
02-15-2006, 06:07 AM
My Dreamweaver instructor said something about some obsolete HTML tags not working at some point in the future. I have my doubts that it will happen anytime soon, though.Some tags that were at one time part of HTML already don't work anymore in most browsers. When a new browser is being developed, why implement support for code that was obsolete already 10 years ago? Ever heard of <fig>? or <comment>? :)

The best strategy is to avoid deprecated tags, and completely forget about obsolete ones. They're obsolete for a reason: there are better ways to do the things they implemented now; the same is true (or will be soon) for deprecated tags. Apply the same strategy to deprecated/obsolete attributes, of course!
Kelvyn
02-15-2006, 11:25 AM
My Dreamweaver instructor said something about some obsolete HTML tags not working at some point in the future.

Then why the h**** is he teaching HTML4.1, when the W3C recommended the XHTML be used back in 2000 - that is 6 years ago now.
iamback
02-15-2006, 11:46 AM
Then why the h**** is he teaching HTML4.1, when the W3C recommended the XHTML be used back in 2000 - that is 6 years ago now.Right. I was just pointing someone to w3schools as having good tutorials for (X)HTML - only to find that it still teaches XHTML as how it's different from HTML. XHTML is not only current, it's easier to learn dammit! (And I was saying that 6 years ago.) Sigh.
Daudio
02-16-2006, 02:48 PM
Ok, so there are lots of good reasons to write new pages in xhtml. But they are mostly for forward campatability, learning, and 'because I say you should'.

But what I would like to know is if there are any good real world, right now, reasons to convert older pages from HTML 4 to XHTML.

Such as: is xhtml any better at rendering in browsers, does it have any advantages from a SEO standpoint, scripting, or things like that ??

Remember, real world, not philisophical...
dacoyle
02-16-2006, 04:31 PM
But what I would like to know is if there are any good real world, right now, reasons to convert older pages from HTML 4 to XHTML.

Such as: is xhtml any better at rendering in browsers, does it have any advantages from a SEO standpoint, scripting, or things like that ??

Remember, real world, not philisophical...

Short answer... browsers have advanced enough and version 4 users have dwindled so much that it's safe to use the XHTML standard now. If anything breaks, the users will already be used to it because they can't use sites like amazon.com or ebay.com.

Sad reality, but it is reality. Now (4 or 5...more?) years later can 95+ percent use the most modern standards. And moving the design more to CSS than the .html file is a good reason to learn XHTML.
Richard Waller
02-16-2006, 11:21 PM
An example of an idea which will surely never catch on is at
www.waller.co.uk/book.htm (http://www.waller.co.uk/book.htm)
Kelvyn
02-16-2006, 11:52 PM
Such as: is xhtml any better at rendering in browsers, does it have any advantages from a SEO standpoint, scripting, or things like that ??

XHTML sites do render faster and, assuming valid code, do not trigger quirks mode in browsers. The separation of content from style is a great benefit for SEO as it is possible to place important SEO content above other content in the page code, but display it, say, at the bottom of the rendered page. However, if HTML 4.x is used properly with CSS, then to update to XHTML is a single mouseclick for DreamWeaver - or ISTR it can be done simply with Tidy, too. There is no compulsion to move to a full CSS2 layout, but a good idea to use this for new sites or pages being developed now.

I update my old sites to XHTML as each one requires redesign or considerable updates.
iamback
02-17-2006, 12:45 AM
However, if HTML 4.x is used properly with CSS, then to update to XHTML is a single mouseclick for DreamWeaver - or ISTR it can be done simply with Tidy, too.Of course, for HTML->XHTML conversion, Tidy is the mother of them all. It's possible DW actually uses Tidy for this, too - HomeSite certainly did.
ktinkel
02-17-2006, 05:19 AM
Of course, for HTML->XHTML conversion, Tidy is the mother of them all. It's possible DW actually uses Tidy for this, too - HomeSite certainly did.I think BBEdit also uses Tidy — it is certainly included with the installation.

I suspect no one wants to reinvent that particular wheel, especially since it works so well.