Re: XHTML vs HTML

I would have been the first to reply to the OP and I'm glad I whacked my
comments and decided to stay out of this until tonight but I will say on the
basis of my own experience with "outsiders" intruding on my relationships
with clients I have worked with that it is very likely you -- gjb -- will
soon become "that guy who used to do our web for us."

If you can't raionally argue why XHTML should or should not be persued and
in which context -- and there are very good reasons for both sides of that
argument -- you need to wise up and decide how to respond to the impending
doom.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
METROmilwaukee (sm) "A Regional Information Service"
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://metromilwaukee.com/
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/


"gjb" <webknight2000@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ecmDqLDLGHA.2828@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks guys!

gjb



"Murray" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eIEsXfCLGHA.516@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Heh - now that's practical. Thanks, Jon!

--
Murray
--------------
MVP FrontPage


"Jon Spivey" <jons@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ewn$42BLGHA.344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If someone asks your skills you can say (X)HTML rather than just HTML
;-)

--
Cheers,
Jon
Microsoft MVP


"Murray" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eNKbUUBLGHA.2912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Try doing that with HTML!

True enough. So tell me again (bearing in mind that IIS6 doesn't serve
XHTML pages correctly) what are the benefits to coding now with XHTML
(other than the academic ones)? 8)

--
Murray
--------------
MVP FrontPage


"Kevin Spencer" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eP1GWwALGHA.3052@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When XHTML 2 is finalized, all current XHTML sites will have to be
rebuilt anyhow.

Not at all. Remember, we're talking about XML here. First, you have a
mandatory DTD, and the browsers can and will be able to use the DTDs.
Second, you have the ability to automatically transform from one
format (such as XHTML 1 to XHTML 2) using XSLT. Try doing that with
HTML!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
We got a sick zebra a hat,
you ultimate tuna.


"Murray" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O%23Fj8pALGHA.2668@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I disagree. XHTML is going to change dramatically in the next several
years. The only advantage to using it now is that you will train
yourself to think about something beyond HTML.

When XHTML 2 is finalized, all current XHTML sites will have to be
rebuilt anyhow.

Whatever - it's up to you. But the marketing company who gave you
the information that HTML doesn't cut it anymore is nuts.

--
Murray
--------------
MVP FrontPage


"Kevin Spencer" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OQvptcALGHA.3408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1- Is there any validity to their statement?

As a general statement, no. If the company has specific plans to
integrate XML/XSLT into their site, then yes, it does, but aside
from that specific need, this marketing company has no clue.
HTML4.01 will continue to be the predominant type of HTML used on
the web for many years yet.

I have to take issue with some of this. While HTML 4.01 will
continue to be the predominant type of HTML *on* the web for many
years yet, it will not be the predominant type of HTML used for new
development in a couple of years.

XHTML has a number of qualities that make it far superior to HTML,
and which will eventually lead to the demise of traditional HTML on
the web.

First, it is XML. There are any number of implications that can be
drawn from this simple fact. XML is, by definition, "eXtensible."
XHTML is also eXtensible, which is not exactly the case with HTML.
Second, because it is XML, it is strict. The rules for creating
and/or parsing XHTML are and will continue to be simple. Third,
because it is XML, it can easily be transformed using XSL from and
into virtually *any* other data format. This is a huge plus, as one
of the biggest difficulties that many companies on the Internet face
is translating their data from an in-house format, such as Word
documents, database data, text files, etc. XHTML can be generated
automatically from such formats, and transformed into such formats.

Consider the next generation of Microsoft Office. All Office
documents will be embracing an XML format. See
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/developers/fileoverview.mspx
for more detailed information. To quote the opening paragraph of
this page, "Distinct from the binary-based file format that has been
a mainstay of past Microsoft Office releases, the new Office XML
Formats are compact, robust file formats that enable better data
integration between documents and back-end systems. An open,
royalty-free file format specification maximizes interoperability in
a heterogeneous environment, and enables any technology provider to
integrate Microsoft Office documents into their solutions."

Microsoft SQL Server has been embracing data in XML format for
aseveral years now, and SQL Server 2005 has much built-in support
for XML. Visual Studio.Net 2005 is set by default to use XHTML for
developing ASP.Net 2.0 applications.

And this is not just happening at Microsoft. XML is fully
interoperable, and is being embraced worldwide for all sorts of
things. Recently I began researching the emerging standards for
Geospatial information systems, at the Open Geospatial Consortium
web site (http://www.opengeospatial.org/). GML (Geography Markup
Language) is a flavor of XML for describing geographic data. The W3C
(http://www.w3.org/) is constantly adding new flavors of XML to
their list of standards.

So, while it may or may not be necessary for a company to convert
their web site to XHTML, depending upon the current and anticipated
requirements, in some cases it is certainly a good idea. Therefore,
there may indeed be some validity to this marketing form's
statement.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
We got a sick zebra a hat,
you ultimate tuna.


"Murray" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%234qck2$KGHA.3052@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1- Is there any validity to their statement?

As a general statement, no. If the company has specific plans to
integrate XML/XSLT into their site, then yes, it does, but aside
from that specific need, this marketing company has no clue.
HTML4.01 will continue to be the predominant type of HTML used on
the web for many years yet.

2- will FrontPage 2003 support XHTML? I don't see it as an option.

Yes, it will.

--
Murray
--------------
MVP FrontPage


"gjb" <webknight2000@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uI%23dEr$KGHA.344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have been maintaining a web site for several years now. I am
currently using FrontPage 2003. The company that owns the site
hired a marketing firm who has told my client the site needs to be
redesign using XHTML and HTML no longer cuts it.
So I have 2 questions to the group
1- Is there any validity to their statement?
2- will FrontPage 2003 support XHTML? I don't see it as an option.

Thank you

g



















.

Quantcast