XHTML Overview
Grok Headline matches for XHTML Overview
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 PMXMLMania.com Jul 24 2004 6:40PM GMT
What's (really) new in XHTML
What's (really) new in XHTML
01/14/2003 09:37 PMXHTML 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.
Why You Should Use XHTML
Why You Should Use XHTML
07/23/2004 02:55 PMSlashdot Jul 23 2004 6:52PM GMT
XHTML 2.0
XHTML 2.0
07/23/2004 04:38 PMW3C publishes the sixth draft of XHTML
2.0
w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722
track this
site | 3 links
"XHTML"
"XHTML"
02/19/2004 03:22 PMSEO and XHTML/CSS
SEO and XHTML/CSS
03/22/2005 09:41 PMMore on XHTML
More on XHTML
01/07/2004 06:48 PMFollowing
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 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.)
Will XHTML Ever Come of Age?
Will XHTML Ever Come of Age?
09/05/2002 01:17 AMDead protocol walking or the future?
XHTML 2.0 surfaces
XHTML 2.0 surfaces
08/12/2002 10:48 AMThe W3C has released Working Drafts of XHTML 2.0 and XFrames, as well
as a second edition of the XHTML 1.0 Recommendation.
"Valid XHTML "
"Valid XHTML "
02/17/2004 08:53 AMXHTML Validator to RSS
XHTML Validator to RSS
09/19/2004 03:22 PMBen Hammersley built a tool which
creates an RSS feed from the W3C's XHTML validation results. Nice
work, Ben!
URLs vs. XHTML
URLs vs. XHTML
03/11/2003 02:00 PMAfter linking a few items on Amazon.com, my XHTML has been broken for
who–knows–how–long. It popped up as I redesigned,...
A Question About XHTML
A Question About XHTML
03/12/2003 10:14 PMAlex Jones asked me to pass along a question to webgraphics readers:
In an upcoming redesign should I use XHTML...
Behind the Scenes with XHTML
Behind the Scenes with XHTML
07/30/2004 10:07 AMIn 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
Implementing XHTML 2.0
Implementing XHTML 2.0
07/27/2004 08:02 PMWell, 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. ?
XHTML and the script tag
XHTML and the script tag
01/07/2004 06:49 PMSo 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.
XHTML Services?
XHTML Services?
01/01/2004 04:33 AMJon 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.
Much of XHTML 2.0 works already
Much of XHTML 2.0 works already
07/23/2004 07:55 PMA 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. ?
The road to XHTML 2.0
The road to XHTML 2.0
03/19/2003 10:27 PMI'm positioning myself to be "Mr. XHTML 2.0". Because, you know, what
the world really needs is more irony. (83 words)
"XHTML Validator to RSS"
"XHTML Validator to RSS"
07/04/2004 03:35 PMXHTML 2.0 Summary
XHTML 2.0 Summary
08/08/2002 07:54 AMThe 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"
W3C Reformulates XHTML 1.0
W3C Reformulates XHTML 1.0
08/05/2002 10:43 PMThe World Wide Web Consortium tweaks XHTML 1.0, which was first
recommended in January 2000.
pentacle - XHTML CMS
pentacle - XHTML CMS
06/14/2004 02:51 PMStarted!
Why Switch to XHTML?
Why Switch to XHTML?
06/10/2004 06:11 AMFor 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
Beginning XHTML
Beginning XHTML
05/24/2002 11:27 AMUsing XPath to mine XHTML
Using XPath to mine XHTML
10/28/2003 11:06 PMSimon
Willison:
This morning, I finally decided to
install
libxml2 and see what
all the
fuss was about, in particular with respect to XPath. What
followed is best described as an enlightening experience.
XHTML-Print recommendation
XHTML-Print recommendation
01/22/2004 10:27 AMis it telling that the XHTML print spec is available in PostScript and
PDF versions?
XHTML Validator to RSS : Ben Hammersley
XHTML Validator to RSS : Ben Hammersley
07/07/2004 04:43 AMXHTML Validator to
RSS
benhammersley.com/tools/xhtml_validator_to_rss.html
track this
site | 4 links
TrackBack and XHTML Validation
TrackBack and XHTML Validation
03/13/2003 10:15 AMOne of the issues with TrackBack currently is that the RDF that
TrackBack inserts into pages breaks XHTML validation. Now,...
CSS+XHTML: Adiós a las tablas
CSS+XHTML: Adiós a las tablas
10/30/2003 11:57 PMMaking the switch to XHTML
Making the switch to XHTML
07/02/2004 07:44 PMCNET Jul 2 2004 11:25PM GMT
Using XHTML/CSS for an Effective SEO
Campaign
Using XHTML/CSS for an Effective SEO
Campaign
01/07/2004 07:10 PMImprove your search engine ranking by harnessing the benefits of
well-authored XHTML and using CSS to boost your code-to-content ratio.
XHTML negotiation module 1.0
XHTML negotiation module 1.0
06/11/2004 11:35 AMAn Apache module that performs content-negotiation for XHTML content.
XHTML 1.0 Second Edition Is a W3C
Recommendation
XHTML 1.0 Second Edition Is a W3C
Recommendation
08/05/2002 10:43 PM1 August 2002: The World Wide Web Consortium today released XHTML 1.0:
The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition) as a W3C
Recommendation. XHTML 1.0 is a reformulation of HTML in XML, giving
the rigor of XML to Web pages. The second edition is not a new
version; it brings the XHTML 1.0 Recommendation up to date with
comments from the community, ongoing work within the HTML Working
Group, and the first edition errata. Read more on the HTML home page.
(News archive)
Ordinary user -> XHTML
Ordinary user -> XHTML
02/05/2005 10:07 PM
Alan
Williamson:
I have attempted to use online editors (fckeditor/htmlArea) but they
do not enforce valid XHTML and the results they produce can sometimes
be a right old mess of tags (try editing the source of a
post-fckeditor saved text). Ironically one of the common
suggestions that have come from my users is their desire to use a WIKI
type of input. They are comfortable with this and it does solve
a lot of UI problems.
However I am finding it difficult to find tools that will actually
take WIKI Markup and transform it to XHTML.
Do the closed source blog/wiki tools do a better job at going from
ordinary user to XHTML?
XFN - XHTML Friends Network
XFN - XHTML Friends Network
12/17/2003 06:06 AMXFN - XHTML Friends Network .. XFN
gmpg.org/xfn
track this
site | 4 links
XHTML, XML and HTML Validator
XHTML, XML and HTML Validator
12/22/2003 04:16 PMOnline DocBook to HTML Convertor Released
Working Draft: XHTML 2.0
Working Draft: XHTML 2.0
07/26/2004 12:17 PM2004-07-22: 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)
Grok Description matches for XHTML Overview
GrokA matches for XHTML Overview
XHTML Overview
