XHTML 1.0 Strict, Transitional .. or XHTML 1.1?

This question has been popping up in my mind lately which kinda bothers me, so I did some research on google, but still in a dilema over which type I should choose for my codings.


Basically, xhtml 1.1 is supposedly to be 1 step up closer to xhtml 2.0 (the future), but I also know that it wasnt too recommended in the past because many browsers didnt support the "application/xhtml+xml" mime type, so most people still sticked with either xhtml 1.0 strict or transitional - This problem however, has been fixed with the new xhtml 1.1 second edition just released january this year according to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML ) and http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/


Any recommendations, anyone?

 

For all practical purposes, xhtml is dead. MSFT has killed it with neglect. From their own words, they have no intention of ever supporting it.

Unless you are fortunate enough to develop for an IE-free business LAN, there is no reason to adopt xhtml.

cheers,

gary

 

I use transition XHTML for my sites

 

Oooooo. So which standard would you suggest? To follow a good standard for your html whether xhtml or just html transitional you should put a Document Declaration Header in your code so that your browsers are constrained to follow something. I'm sure there are some experienced people here that would back me up on attempting to at least keep your browser for running rampant into quirks mode.

So to test your code, to make sure you have closed your tags and not left something wide open, god forbid a div. Then at least go for XHTML 1.0

 

use Html 4.01 Strict
xhtml like someone said, and some website i read say: is a gonner
also red that Html 4.01Strict is the best DTD to use, in relation to transitional
cant remember why but that the idea i stayed with

 

No one has any need for any transitional doctype for new web pages. And no one here serves xhtml as xhtml either so its use makes no sense for most people. Microsoft ruined the web, and xhtml, by not supporting it as Gary said above.

Use html 4.01 strict and forget the rest.

 

I have to disagree with a couple of the posters here. I code most of my sites to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and they validate and render perfectly on everything from IE6 (can't wait for it to finally die) to Firefox 3. I've had zero problems with any major browser since I began coding to this standard. Now, it does take some effort (read: testing) to make sure Microsoft browsers don't screw up your designs, but it's becoming less and less of an issue for me. Most of my IE-using visitors are making a rapid transition to IE7+, and my Firefox and Safari userbases are growing rapidly by percentile as well. Good luck with your sites .

 

That's nice but it doesn't mean anything. You don't serve it as xhtml so that means all browsers treat it as broken html or "tag soup". It won't read it as xhtml so writing xhtml is worthless.

And using transitional is total nonsense. What are you transitioning from? Are you using deprecated markup? Why are you doing that? Transitional doctype is for pages that use older markup and are transitioning to current markup so what sense does it make to use it for anything else?

 

drhowarddrfine, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Modern user agents most assuredly do not treat content where the DOCTYPE indicates XHTML as "tag soup." As for using transitional being nonsense, that's a pretty senseless statement; developers code to the standard that best meets the needs of their content, which in my case happens to be XHTML 1.0 Transitional. As a matter of fact, I do make use of markup that is totally valid in transitional, but does not conform to strict. The whole point of having standards is the fact that it gives user agents a set of rules to consistently interpret content. Some do it better than others, but I have no issues with rendering. I've been doing this for fifteen years, since Netscape was the "hot new thing" in tech. How long have you been dispensing this kind of "advice?"

 

I do agree with ClassHelper.org. All the websites I've working for used XHTML 1.0 Transitional that's work fine and prevent any problem from the client's code modification.

 

Where did you acquire that bit of misinformation? Browsers do not care diddley squat what the DTD says, nor does it pay any attention to the meta http-equiv. The only use it has for the DTD is to trigger either quirks or standards rendering mode. An xhtml document served with a text/html response header will be treated as html, and that means a tag-soup, aka fault tolerant, parser. An xhtml document served as application/xhtml+xml will get a strict parser, one that fails to an error message for any syntax error. IE, though, will not recognize the MIME type, and will pop up a dialogue box asking which application to open for that document.

So, as the Doctor says, you are using obsolete, deprecated markup. Why? There are a few, one maybe (?), valid reasons for doing so, but are you really aware of what you're doing? Or, is it because you can't seem to get it right?

As stated above, it has nothing to do with the UAs interpreting content. As for the Doc's experience, it wouldn't matter if this were the first time; he would still be right. As for your fifteen years, you still got it wrong.

gary

 

Please disregard previous post (that occupied this slot); I was being a jerk to someone who's probably a really nice guy. I still disagree with kk5st, buit I'm taking the discussion off-board in the interest of civility. Carry on smartly, if you can .

 

You are wrong. All major browsers employ rendering mode switching based on the DTD. This includes Mozilla and family, Safari, Opera and IE. Opera goes so far as to simulate many IE6 quirks mode bugs in their own quirks mode.

Neither Firefox nor any other modern browser base the rendering on the file extension. It is the server that reacts to the extension, to set the response header, or in the case of shtml, to parse the server-side includes. HTML and shtml are sent as text/html, just as a css extension triggers a text/css mimetype header. An xhtml extension should trigger an application/xhtml+xml header, and does in modern servers. It is not recognized by IIS. It is not necessary that the xhtml extension be used, as you can use an .htaccess file to force whichever header you want on whichever extension. The browser reacts to the server response header first and foremost.

Lots of null verbiage, except for one question, which I emphasized. Of course not. HTML4.01 is the current html recommendation. Both my and Doc's comments regarding obsolete or deprecated markup were in reference to using a transitional DTD. I can't imagine why you would question either his or my opinion on html4.

I was out of diapers before there was a working Eniac, and wrote my first code at Northwestern in 1963. So, climb down off your erroneous zone before you fall and hurt yourself.

gary

 

Once again, I disagree with several of your assertions, but I'd like to take the conversation off-board instead of continuing to bump this thread up. If you'd like, we can continue via email or phone (please see PM to this effect). It's a shame you got to my message before I managed to redact it, as I freely admit I was a jerk, and you've got far more core computing experience (1963? You're not a dinosaur, you're someone to be respected in the field). Be well.

--- EDIT 0442 EST ---
By the way, I also accept that you're right on a couple of points that I goofed on, but I'd like to discuss more specific aspects of how these points actually affect the usability of web content. Thanks.
--- END EDIT ---

 

I keep telling myself that if I wait to post, for example to do some fact checking, I should refresh before typing. I never do, and thus, missed your edit and your PM. You were very gracious in both.

As long as it's the message and not the messenger being debated, it's not a flame war—even if the debate gets hot.

cheers,

gary

 

wow, relax dudes. Now can I have a show of hands from those who do freelance psd to xhtml/css services? Cause that's what I'm mainly concerned about, whether the public still wants xhtml, or the recommended html 4.01 now, as I read from this thread.

 

We prefer xhtml 1.0 and have large clientele who convert their psd designs to html/xhtml

 

Just chiming in to say Gary is correct and I agree with everything he has said. There is nothing to discuss here. Its a non-issue if you know what you're talking about.

 

Read and learn:
Serving xhtml
html vs xhtml

 

From a pragmatic POV, it doesn't matter which syntax you use; use whichever you prefer. It's still html as far as the browser is concerned. XHTML is not the next step from html, it's really a separate language, on a separate path. It is unfortunate that MSFT has chosen to be obdurate in its refusal to support xhtml, because xhtml offers the power of xml with the ease of use of html. MSFT's idiocy has effectively killed xhtml.

Use whichever syntax you prefer, but if you're selling xhtml as the latest and greatest, you're blowing smoke up the nether regions of your client, or maybe up your own.

cheers,

gary