Re: Why XHTML?
i don't think Sander D. is arguing for tables hes saying it doesn't need to be xhtml since theres no point... you can have html using divs not tables
Re: Why XHTML?
analogue wrote:
The choice is so obvious there is no need for any proof nor explanation.
And it's obvious too that you serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html at your site? Please, if you don't even know what you're talking about, don't tell me that it's "so obvious" to use XHTML instead of HTML.
Rickard wrote:
This particular forum is special because I want to show PunBB the way it looks when you install it.
I don't fully understand what you mean 
SaDiKe wrote:
When used correctly, XHTML is lighter than HTML.
It's suggested to not use table anymore with XHTML for the global display of your site. You should use <div> for blocks(like a cell with HTML), lists(<ul> and <li>) for menus, the headers(h1, h2, h3...) for title and so on...
Like I've written before a few times, you can as well use divs instead of tables for layout in HTML. For HTML, people suggested that too. XHTML 1.0 really is no more than an XML version of HTML. The rest is the same.
SaDiKe wrote:
but when we know all its advantages, XHTML is better.
There are no practical advantages of XHTML 1.0 yet for a forum that doesn't work with XML. But I've written that before too...
- Connorhd
- Former PunBB Developer
- Offline
Re: Why XHTML?
so whats the advantages of HTML? a couple of bytes?
Re: Why XHTML?
XHTML is the way forward... the new standard. It is replacing HTML so it is best to keep up to date with the standards. Since the forums utilise CSS more it is only natural that they become XHTML.
Besides all the cool kids are using it 
Re: Why XHTML?
SaDiKe wrote:
When used correctly, XHTML is lighter than HTML.
It's suggested to not use table anymore with XHTML for the global display of your site. You should use <div> for blocks(like a cell with HTML), lists(<ul> and <li>) for menus, the headers(h1, h2, h3...) for title and so on...
Of course, XHTML is maybe harder to understand than HTML, but when we know all its advantages, XHTML is better.
Just as an exemple, see at the code of my design here: http://sadike.free.fr/sadike/ftxp/index.html . If you want, try to do the same thing just with HTML and tables.... I'm sure that you couldn't do lighter!
As a web designer, I use XHTML exclusivly at this point. But, a few quick points :
XHTML does not equal DIV / Tableless
and
HTML does not equal INVALID & TABLES
truthfully, anything that can be accomplished in XHTML can be accomplished with nearly the same code in HTML. the difference is that XHTML is XML, where as HTML is not.
why is this important? Short answer, for many projects, initially, it really isn't. It's a choice, the addition of the extra tags and slashes adds a nominal bit of overhead, if any.
BUT. If you have ever taken over a site from another designer, XHTML is wonderful. Easier to read, because all the nesting MUST be done right for it to be valid.
Also, XHTML has the possibility of adding your own tags, with a custom doctype (so does HTML really, but it's more accepted to do this in XHTML). things like <newsitem> or <red> could be used (before the semantics nazis sic the dogs on me, note that was a 'could' not 'should')
All that said, XHTML is going to be what people are moving towards, it is the so called 'furture'.
One thing I havn't mentioned is the application/xhtml+xml thing. Note that as of XHTML 1 (not 1.1), XHTML documents SHOULD be served using this, not MUST. This dosn't happen until XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 2 (not yet a full standard), and there are a number of PHP solutions to do just this.
I'd be more than happy to answer any specific questions about XHTML vs. HTML as I know em, just keep the followups coming
~just one web developers opinion - j
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonathan T. Sage
Lighting & Set Designer
Professional Web Designer
Jonathan T. Sage
Lighting & Set Designer
Professional Web Designer
Re: Why XHTML?
# Sander D
edit; wrote a long responce but cant be bothered to have a fight. it is not worth it as you are a closed minded fool
If you really care that much about trying to get people the change back to using html. Go throught the source for punBB and change it so that is html and relase it as a html alternatiive.
Eddie
32 2005-01-02 19:14 (edited by Sander D. 2005-01-02 19:20)
Re: Why XHTML?
Connorhd wrote:
so whats the advantages of HTML? a couple of bytes?
Probably. What are the advantages of XHTML 1.0?
edduddiee wrote:
it is not worth it as you are a closed minded fool
Thank you!
edduddiee wrote:
If you really care that much about trying to get people the change back to using html.
No, I'm trying to discuss it. People shouldn't just do something because they've heard that XHTML is the successor to HTML (which is not true), without thinking about it theirselves. I think that's a bit narrow-minded.
edduddiee wrote:
Go throught the source for punBB and change it so that is html and relase it as a html alternatiive.
I thought about doing that, but I think it isn't worth it.
Don't know if you've read it by the way, but I have written that I agree with Rickard about using XHTML for PunBB.
Re: Why XHTML?
Sander D: You are correct in that the "close-mindedness" is more apparent among people who claim XHTML is inherently better than HTML. I'm getting tired of the old misconception wisesage brought up regarding HTML/tables and XHTML/divs. I can't really give you any concrete examples as to why XHTML is better than HTML other than what has already been said in this topic. There aren't any big advantages. I think what Fire Fusion said above sums it up pretty well: "All the cool kids are using it". Staying with HTML would have severely hurt PunBB's possibilities of getting adopted by the web development community. Being XHTML compliant does not add any measurable overhead. A few bytes here and there really doesn't add up to much in the greater scheme of things. Especially considering how easy PunBB in on bandwidth and web servers anyway (no images -> few requests). Being compliant does however make PunBB more attractive to the general public.
Regarding web site integration, I just meant that these forums use the default templates to show people how the forum looks when you download it and install it yourself. However, most people, at least the ones that are serious about their forums, integrate PunBB into their websites in more elaborate ways. Here's an example. That forum is using PunBB 1.1 and PunBB 1.1 outputs HTML. That means the other parts of that website that are in the templates must also be HTML. With 1.2, people won't have to convert their new XHTML websites to HTML in order to properly integrate with PunBB. I know most of the web is still HTML, but PunBB needs to look forward, not backwards.
Let's just put this to rest now. PunBB 1.2 outputs XHTML Strict markup and if you don't like it, you'll just have to go with another forum solution. I hope you stay with PunBB though
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
Re: Why XHTML?
Sander D. wrote:
analogue wrote:The choice is so obvious there is no need for any proof nor explanation.
And it's obvious too that you serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html at your site? Please, if you don't even know what you're talking about, don't tell me that it's "so obvious" to use XHTML instead of HTML.
Oh my god, you are an idiot aren't you ? I can't serve it as application/xhtml+xml simply because IE will try to download it instead of parsing it. Oh yes, I could send a different media type depending on the browser but I'm not a big fan of the pages adapting themselves to the client.
And as you are at personnal websites, what about yours ?
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<title>Sanders webstek</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/Simpel.css">
<link rel="icon" href="/u/Icoon.png">
<link rel="start" href="/" title="Beginpagina">
<h1>Beginpagina</h1>
<p>Welkom op mijn website! Hier zet ik af en toe wat pagina?s neer, die je waarschijnlijk niet zoveel zullen interesseren. Je kan ook metéén doorgaan naar <a href="http://mcduck.nl/">McDuck.nl</a>.
<address><a href="mailto:sander.dijkhuis@gmail.com">Sander Dijkhuis</a></address>
<ul>
<li><a href="/contact">Contact</a>
<li><a href="/dubbele-ducks">Dubbele Ducks</a>
<li><a href="/links">Links</a>
<li><a href="/kamer/1">Mijn kamer</a>
<li><a href="/rooster">Roosterwijzigingen</a>
<li><a href="/info">Over mij</a>
</ul>It might be syntaxically correct but... No comment.
- Connorhd
- Former PunBB Developer
- Offline
Re: Why XHTML?
wait where did <html> <head> <body> etc go?
Re: Why XHTML?
Relax people.
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
37 2005-01-03 10:45 (edited by Sander D. 2005-01-03 11:30)
Re: Why XHTML?
Rickard wrote:
Staying with HTML would have severely hurt PunBB's possibilities of getting adopted by the web development community. Being XHTML compliant does not add any measurable overhead. A few bytes here and there really doesn't add up to much in the greater scheme of things.
Okay, okay, I agree. And of course I'll stay with PunBB.
analogue wrote:
Oh my god, you are an idiot aren't you ?
Wow, you're the second one who calls me something like that!
analogue wrote:
I can't serve it as application/xhtml+xml simply because IE will try to download it instead of parsing it.
So you should use XHTML 1.0, because that's the only backwards-compatible XHTML version. See XHTML Media Types if you don't believe me. For web sites like yours, there only are disadvantages of XHTML 1.1.
analogue wrote:
And as you are at personnal websites, what about yours ? (...) It might be syntaxically correct but...
But what? HTML is based upon SGML, which can handle tags that aren't closed, unlike XML (which is based upon SGML too). Starting with a new <p> tag will cause the previous one to 'end'. And you don't need tags like <html>, <head> or <body>, because it's clear where the HTML code starts and where the BODY starts. Omitting those tags doesn't mean ommiting the elements HTML and BODY; see my CSS. See the Index of HTML 4 Elements. So that's what I like about HTML (Though I am not trying to tell you what to use. If you think XHTML is better for you, just use it.)
Rickard wrote:
Relax people.
I agree again. I was only trying to discuss the use of (X)HTML at PunBB (which isn't neccassary for me now anymore), and trying out PunBB 1.2
Re: Why XHTML?
Good good. Then I think a close topic might be in order before people who haven't read the whole topic get nasty again.
Re: Why XHTML?
I agree
[topic closed]
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."