Making the switch to XHTML

Grok Headline matches for Making the switch to XHTML

Why Switch to XHTML?

Why Switch to XHTML? 06/10/2004 06:11 AM
For Web developers, the learning process never seems to end, especially with coding. As the web evolves, so do the standards, which are moving from HTML to XHTML. Learn why you should consider migrating to this new standard sooner than later. By Lee Underwood. 0610

Making the Switch to Mac OS

Making the Switch to Mac OS 06/22/2005 01:48 AM
Despite a few bumps, it's a smooth ride.

Ask Jeeves Making CEO Switch

Ask Jeeves Making CEO Switch 11/03/2003 07:21 PM
Google is prepping for an IPO that should give it an influx of cash, and Microsoft (Quote, Chart) is working on its own search initiative. ...

iPod users making the switch to Mac

iPod users making the switch to Mac 12/24/2004 12:57 PM
Two Wall Street Journal writers received reader responses that support the fact that the iPod "halo effect" is working...

Cost savings by making the switch VoIP :
Internet technology has additional
features to help smaller businesse

Cost savings by making the switch VoIP :
Internet technology has additional
features to help smaller businesse 04/04/2005 04:32 AM
InsightExec Apr 4 2005 9:08AM GMT

W3C HTML Working Group Publishes Updated
XHTML 2.0 Draft and XHTML FAQ

W3C HTML Working Group Publishes Updated
XHTML 2.0 Draft and XHTML FAQ 07/24/2004 02:24 PM
XMLMania.com Jul 24 2004 6:40PM GMT

Man Happier About Switch To Mac Than
Switch To Christianity

Man Happier About Switch To Mac Than
Switch To Christianity 06/15/2004 10:01 AM

Will XHTML Ever Come of Age?

Will XHTML Ever Come of Age? 09/05/2002 01:17 AM
Dead protocol walking or the future?

SEO and XHTML/CSS

SEO and XHTML/CSS 03/22/2005 09:41 PM

What's (really) new in XHTML

What's (really) new in XHTML 01/14/2003 09:37 PM
XHTML 2.0 has been a topic of much discussion lately, including two recent Working Drafts. This article collects the recent changes in one convenient place.

XHTML 1.1

XHTML 1.1 12/03/2002 11:46 AM

XHTML 1.0 Strict isn't that much different from XHTML 1.0, except for a few little things. So I figured I'd just upgrade to XHTML 1.1 as long as I was on a roll fixing my site. Plus, it didn't take me long at all.

The one thing that bothers me though is the removal of the name attribute in the a element, and the way that the replacement id attribute works. For a name attribute you could have called it anything. For an id attribute, it can't start with a number. What happens if I want my anchors to use the title of my entries instead of the padded entry id? Say for example I want my anchor to be like this <h3 id="2.4Ghz Router">2.4Ghz Router</h3>. Well too bad, I can't do it. I don't use anchors on this site, because I don't really need them, I have individual archives. But come on, we need a workaround to this problem, albeit a very small one. (For you that don't know what an anchor does, it allows you to link to a specific section on a page using a # after the page name, for example http://noeljackson.com/archives/2002/October/index.php#rssical_070.)

Why You Should Use XHTML

Why You Should Use XHTML 07/23/2004 02:55 PM
Slashdot Jul 23 2004 6:52PM GMT

XHTML 2.0

XHTML 2.0 07/23/2004 04:38 PM
W3C publishes the sixth draft of XHTML 2.0

w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722
track this site | 3 links

More on XHTML

More on XHTML 01/07/2004 06:48 PM
Following yesterday's post about XHTML validation and the script tag (which I assumed to be a browser problem, not a code problem) I got an email from megnut reader Maurice saying,

Script element should always have an end tag and really can't be considered a singular or "empty" type tag like, say, the Image tag or something. I guess it must be a minor glitch in the validator or something.

Since that didn't sound right to me, I decided to go to the source: XHTML 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language, Section 4.3: For non-empty elements, end tags are required. It says,

4.3. In SGML-based HTML 4 certain elements were permitted to omit the end tag; with the elements that followed implying closure. XML does not allow end tags to be omitted. All elements other than those declared in the DTD as EMPTY must have an end tag. Elements that are declared in the DTD as EMPTY can have an end tag or can use empty element shorthand

So I examine the DT D and see that <script> does not contain EMPTY, which would support Maurice's assertions that the code was in fact, not valid, and there was a glitch in the validator. But then I looked at the definition for <p> and it doesn't contain EMPTY either. But you can use <p /> instead of <p></p>. Or at least, I thought you could. Plus it seems weird since a <script> in reality can be empty, like in my example when it's linked to an external file. So why's the DTD saying it can't be? Anyone actually understand what's going on here?

"XHTML"

"XHTML" 02/19/2004 03:22 PM

pentacle - XHTML CMS

pentacle - XHTML CMS 06/14/2004 02:51 PM
Started!

The road to XHTML 2.0

The road to XHTML 2.0 03/19/2003 10:27 PM
I'm positioning myself to be "Mr. XHTML 2.0". Because, you know, what the world really needs is more irony. (83 words)

A Question About XHTML

A Question About XHTML 03/12/2003 10:14 PM
Alex Jones asked me to pass along a question to webgraphics readers: In an upcoming redesign should I use XHTML...

URLs vs. XHTML

URLs vs. XHTML 03/11/2003 02:00 PM
After linking a few items on Amazon.com, my XHTML has been broken for who–knows–how–long. It popped up as I redesigned,...

XHTML Services?

XHTML Services? 01/01/2004 04:33 AM

Jon Udell waxes nostalgic about the good old days of screen scraping HTML in order to build the first generation of Web services. That’s great and I’ve built my share of screen scraping applications as well. But then Udell goes on to propose that companies should abandon modern Web services technologies in favor of screen scrapes helped along by well-formed XHTML.

Udell’s reasoning is that Web services through SOAP is too complicated. "But if I’d had to register for an API key and locate WSDL documentation for each of the three services whose results I compared, I probably wouldn’t have bothered," he says. His entire argument is based on his experiences with the Google API and their specific SOAP implementation.

Google requires that anyone using their API register for and use an API key—an identifying token that lets Google track the usage of their API down to a specific user or application. Google requires it, but the SOAP protocol does not. Most SOAP services don’t have any sort of key and if you were building a tool for an intranet, you probably wouldn’t need or want such a scheme. Not only does Udell miss that point, but he also forgets that SOAP isn’t the only Web services technology.

Udell says that a primary threat to your intranet is disuse. If people find it too difficult to create and use information on the intranet, they won’t bother. That’s true; if you create onerous processes that content creators must follow, they’ll find ways around them, publishing their information in ways that you don’t expect. But Udell’s assertion that building data access through Web services will make it too difficult for people to use your data is preposterous. Screen scraping is more difficult and more apt to fail than using stable, published APIs. And with REST, the APIs are just as easy to access as any other Web document.

As an example, let’s use product data for my new camera. What’s easier—scraping product data from Amazon’s Web page or getting it in XML format from their REST interface? For each method I have a unique URL that I request to get the data. There aren’t any complicated steps to follow for either system. But the HTML version, even if it were well-formed XHTML, would be significantly harder to retrieve meaningful data from. And changes to the display of the information would often mean changes to the structure of the HTML, necessitating further changes to my screen scraping application. Amazon does require a developer’s token (an API key, essentially), but again, that’s only so they can control usage. There’s no reason at at all that a REST system like this couldn’t be built without it.

But doesn’t creating a REST interface mean more work for the content producers? Probably not. Presumably your corporate intranet is using some sort of content management system. Otherwise there’d be no way to enforce this XHTML-only rule. Furthermore, that content management system probably stores the content in a database somewhere separate from the presentation of said content. All you need to do is build one REST interface that retrieves the required content from that database and presents it as a pre-determined XML document instead of an HTML document. The content producers could go along creating content as they always have, blissfully unaware that they are also populating a Web service.

Udell’s XHTML scraping suggestion has significant risks as well. Remember that making the process of content creation difficult will ensure that people find other ways to create content—ways that you don’t control. But in advocating screen scraping, Udell says, "it’s true that creating XHTML pages requires more discipline than hacking out HTML, and it may incur some retraining costs." Not only are you going to make it difficult for people to build systems that automatically consume information, but you also propose making it more difficult to create it?

People will flock to things that are easy. RSS took off because it was easy to create and easy to consume. Sure, it would be possible to create screen scraping applications that would take any well-formed XHTML content source and pull that content into a newsreader. But it’s much easier for everyone concerned to create a simple, easy-to-understand format that contains all of the information in logical chunks and just run with it.

"XHTML Validator to RSS"

"XHTML Validator to RSS" 07/04/2004 03:35 PM

XHTML Validator to RSS

XHTML Validator to RSS 09/19/2004 03:22 PM

Ben Hammersley built a tool which creates an RSS feed from the W3C's XHTML validation results. Nice work, Ben!

W3C Reformulates XHTML 1.0

W3C Reformulates XHTML 1.0 08/05/2002 10:43 PM
The World Wide Web Consortium tweaks XHTML 1.0, which was first recommended in January 2000.

Much of XHTML 2.0 works already

Much of XHTML 2.0 works already 07/23/2004 07:55 PM
A few days ago the W3C released the HTML and XHTML FAQ. I skimmed over it and saw no interesting things. So that was that. Just now I saw a dramatic increase of visitors to this site. I was a bit surprised because there hasn't been any news on my site lately, and I had seen no new interesting referrers. ?

"Valid XHTML "

"Valid XHTML " 02/17/2004 08:53 AM

Implementing XHTML 2.0

Implementing XHTML 2.0 07/27/2004 08:02 PM
Well, I slept off most of my desire to blog about XHTML 2.0, but here's a post anyway. The thing is, I don't think implementing elements using behaviors is really a good idea, although I feel bad saying it while the W3C is linking to my test implementation. ?

Behind the Scenes with XHTML

Behind the Scenes with XHTML 07/30/2004 10:07 AM
In a previous article, we touched on the requirements for proper XHTML coding, especially in relation to HTML 4.01. Today, we look at what some of those requirements are in relation to the head portion of the Web page. By Lee Underwood. 0730

XHTML 2.0 Summary

XHTML 2.0 Summary 08/08/2002 07:54 AM
The W3C have kindly released a working draft of the XHTML version 2.0 specification. As has been speculated in discussions here, frames have been dropped in favour of XFrames (an XML implementation of HTML Framesets) for which a working draft specification was published yesterday. Quite a few other things have changed and a lot of dead wood has been cleared. XHTML 2.0 is NOT intended to be backwards-compatible. -- Mike Golding

"zeldman.jg"

Beginning XHTML

Beginning XHTML 05/24/2002 11:27 AM

XHTML Overview

XHTML Overview 05/23/2002 10:39 PM

XHTML 2.0 surfaces

XHTML 2.0 surfaces 08/12/2002 10:48 AM
The W3C has released Working Drafts of XHTML 2.0 and XFrames, as well as a second edition of the XHTML 1.0 Recommendation.

XHTML and the script tag

XHTML and the script tag 01/07/2004 06:49 PM
So for some odd reason, my alpha Kinja design that was visible in IE, Camino, Firebird, and Safari on IE and Mac suddenly stopped rendering on IE/Mac, IE/Windows, and Safari/Mac (didn't test the others, was too busy freaking out). I tried everything I could think of, validated the code (clean XHMTL 1.0 Strict), validated the CSS, had some friends take a look, and nothing. "View source" showed code, but nothing appeared on screen. Finally, after commenting out code line by line, I nailed it. In my header, I had:

<script src="/functions.js" type="text/javascript" />

While the validator liked this, and Camino had no problem, the other browers barfed big time and treated it as an unclosed tag, rendering nothing more. A quick change to:

<script src="/functions.js" type="text/javascript"></script>

and all is right with the world again. I write this because I'm sure I'll have this problem again, and then Google will help me (hi idiot Meg from the future making the same mistakes again!) In the meantime, it may help you.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict 12/03/2002 11:46 AM

This site is XHTML 1.0 Strict valid. Dang am I happy about that. It took some time getting rid of my old align="center" and <b> tag games, but it sure is worth it.

XHTML negotiation module 0.94

XHTML negotiation module 0.94 04/11/2004 03:01 AM
An Apache module that performs content-negotiation for XHTML content.

XHTML, XML and HTML Validator

XHTML, XML and HTML Validator 12/22/2003 04:16 PM
Online DocBook to HTML Convertor Released

Newspaper xhtml redesign

Newspaper xhtml redesign 08/02/2004 01:35 PM
When Wired News redesigned as nearly standards compliant xhtml in fall of 2002, it was cause for a great deal of celebration. Since then other prominent sites like ESPN and PGA have jumped on the standards bandwagon, as have countless personal sites. Today the SF Examiner launched a new site design which does validate as xhtml. More interesting to me are their category archives and date archives, which mimic a weblog's simple and useful layout. Heck, I even love the story pages which feature large leaded text (space between lines - the amount of "double spaceness") which is also blog-like, and makes for comfortable reading. As far as I know, SF Examiner is the first, but will this start a new wave of bandwidth-saving, well-designed newspaper redesigns? [via veen]

Working Draft: XHTML 2.0

Working Draft: XHTML 2.0 07/26/2004 12:17 PM
2004-07-22: The HTML Working Group has released the sixth public Working Draft of XHTML 2.0. A modularized language without presentation elements, XHTML 2 takes HTML back to its roots in document structuring. The draft includes an early implementation of XHTML 2.0 in RELAX NG. Comments are welcome. Visit the HTML home page. (News archive)

XHTML For Syndication Sucks

XHTML For Syndication Sucks 12/03/2002 11:46 AM

I've been reading a lot lately about using XHTML instead of RSS for syndication of a web site in a news aggregator. The statement is this:

All that would be needed is standardization of names and classes for page elements like DIVs and headers. A post/entry title would always be an H3, with a class set to "title", for example. Permanent links would always be P tags with their classes set to "permalink". Simple.

To me, this is not only a terrible idea, but a lazy idea. (But, then again, I could be speaking hastily.) How hard is it to create an RSS file? How hard is it to setup MT? Why would I want to give up the right to name my .title class .blogtitle or .articletitle? I like RSS, it works well, and is automatically generated for me, as well as for everybody who has a use for it.

So I guess the whole point of using XHTML for syndication is to get away from having to type in http://noeljackson.com/index.xml instead of just pointing your aggregator to the base URL (http://noeljackson.com). But wait a sec isn't that what the <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS" href="http://www.noeljackson.com/index.xml" /> tag is for?

The only plus is not having to maintain multiple files. But the same problem occurs, you have to mark-up your XHTML according to someone elses specs, just like with RSS. Except with RSS you can separate your content from your design, which makes RSS syndication faster than XHTML and to me it seems like a "cleaner" idea. I don't know about you, but I definitely don't want to see XHTML become the next syndication form. Don't hate me for saying that, but I just think there are better ways to do it. Having pure XML and an XSLT stylsheet for XHTML and RSS seems like the best way to do it to me. I just wish XSLT stylesheets could be easier to implement on the client side. Oh bother, I sure hope RSS sticks around.

application/xhtml+xml dilemma

application/xhtml+xml dilemma 12/07/2002 03:37 PM
I decided that I wanted to serve this site in the type "application/xhtml+xml", if the user's browser supports it. I figured out simply how to do this with PHP, and everyone was happy. if ( strpos ( $_SERVER[ "HTTP_ACCEPT" ] , "application/xhtml+xml" ) ) { header ( "Content-type: application/xhtml+xml" ); } Or so I thought. It seems that when I use this code, all of my wonderful DOM compliant Javascript that brings you recent RSS feeds stops working. I can't figure out a concrete reason why, but I can only assume that when a page is interpreted with this content-type, it no longer is treated as a regular web document, but as strict XML. If anyone can shed some light on the situation, please e-mail me.
Grok Description matches for Making the switch to XHTML
GrokA matches for Making the switch to XHTML

Making the switch to XHTML

The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry: