Author |
Message |
vulcanpimp
Junior WebHelper
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
Posts: 14
Location: uk
|
Posted:
Sat Mar 15, 2003 2:17 pm (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
I wish to learn a bit about xhtml. Anyone know any good sites with tutorials etc.
thanks in advance |
|
|
|
|
Daniel
Team Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564
|
Posted:
Sat Mar 15, 2003 3:22 pm (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
|
|
adam
Forum Moderator & Developer
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 704
Location: UK
|
Posted:
Sun Mar 16, 2003 12:00 am (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
|
|
vulcanpimp
Junior WebHelper
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
Posts: 14
Location: uk
|
Posted:
Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:10 pm (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
I've taken a look at those pages. One question I have , is it really worth learning xhtml. Do many people use it? I've heard a claim that it works the same in all browsers - is that true?
I looked at some of those pages which people suggested but some of them weren't even built in xhtml - not exactly a great advert. |
|
|
|
|
adam
Forum Moderator & Developer
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 704
Location: UK
|
Posted:
Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:57 pm (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
In my opinion it is totally worth using XHTML. Not only does it help ensure cross-browser compatibility, but it also helps keep the actual data of your pages separate from all layout and formating. This is good because, for example, it will be easier in the future when you want to change something about your pages. Remember all those bits you thought looked nice in bold? wouldn't it be nice if you could change them all and see what they're like in italic, or perhaps another colour? well you can do that by editing your CSS file. combining CSS and XHTML is a much better, much more modern way of structuring your pages. yes, it is true you can use CSS with plain ol' HTML, but sticking to XHTML stops your code becoming some hideous mess which is impossible to maintain.
Also, I find that XHTML pages load faster...they tend to be less bloated and require less processing. |
________________________________ It's turtles all the way down... |
|
|
|
Daniel
Team Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564
|
Posted:
Mon Mar 17, 2003 5:19 pm (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
While I agree with most of what adam said, XHTML does not require seperation of content from layout . That's a whole other story; ALA may be a good place to start learning about it (http://www.alistapart.com/index.html).
XHTML on its own isn't really very hard to learn, it's just an evolution of HTML. If you want to get rid of tables (article by Tara about it at http://climbtothestars.org/coding/tableless/), use CSS extensively, etc... then you're in for a lot more work. |
________________________________
|
|
|
|
Robert Wellock
WebHelper
Joined: 18 Jan 2002
Posts: 61
Location: Yorkshire - UK
|
Posted:
Mon Mar 17, 2003 5:22 pm (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
Yes, eXtensible HyperText Markup Language is used by thousands of websites, since I never liked HTML 4.01 I began using it in late 1999.
This year I have noticed many webmasters have finally realised the benefits of converting from HTML 4.01 along with the rise of CSS layout, which is now more practical since there are less version four and five browsers in general operation.
I myself was authoring XHTML in less than 30 minutes: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ and basically any browser, which can display HTML 4.01, will render XHTML 1.0.
Vulcanpimp I noticed you wanted to look at some XHTML Strict, well I do have some basic XHTML 1.1 on display: http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/worthvalley/ which is semantically stricter than XHTML 1.0 Strict. |
________________________________ };-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
Last edited by Robert Wellock on Mon May 19, 2003 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Hertzsprung
WebHelper
Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 56
Location: UK
|
Posted:
Tue Mar 18, 2003 12:30 pm (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
Robert Wellock wrote: | Yes, eXtensible HyperText Markup Language is used by thousands of websites, since I never liked HTML 4.01 I began using it in late 1999.
This year I have noticed many webmasters have finally realised the benefits of converting from HTML 4.01 along with the rise of CSS layout, which is now more practical since there are less version four and five browsers in general operation.
I myself was authoring XHTML in less than 30 minutes: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ and basically any browser, which can display HTML 4.01, will render XHTML 1.0.
Vulcanpimp I noticed you wanted to look at some XHTML Strict, well I do have some basic XHTML 1.1 on display: http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/worthvalley/ which is semantically stricter than XHTML 1.0 Strict.
|
Forget HTML and XHTML, XSL-FO is the way forward |
|
|
|
|
Robert Wellock
WebHelper
Joined: 18 Jan 2002
Posts: 61
Location: Yorkshire - UK
|
Posted:
Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:21 am (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
LOL, nonetheless XSL Flow Objects, is mainly used for outputting PDF files with extreme formatting and pagination control. Plus you have to remember there are still many browsers than don't parse eXtensible Markup Language (XML) correctly and XSL Transformations (XSLT) processing tends to be a slow procedure due to the nature of the mark-up and poor browser support.
Unless you are after "dynamic content generation" then eXtensible Markup Language (XML) in the form of XHTML more than suffices since the XHTML DTD was designed to mimic HTML 4.01 thus there would be less point in writing an XLST document to transform XML and XLS into XHTML which itself is XML just to display on a mainstream web browser.
Perhaps when Micro$oft Explorer 6.0 usage becomes a vague memory much like the version three browsers, I would consider using pure XML and XLST but at the moment PHP is more than capable at doing what I want and probably a lot faster. |
________________________________ };-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/ |
|
|
|
|