Re: Quanta and xhtml

Scott wrote:
> Andrew Wigglesworth wrote:
>   
>> On Tuesday 08 July 2008 15:50:17 John Culleton wrote:
>>     
>>> Many books now tout xhtml and css in combination as the web design
>>> formats of the future.  However at first glance Q+ is still oriented
>>> to html.  The templates that "come with" are all html oriented.
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone would care to cmment on the plans for Q+ with
>>> respect to xhtml?
>>>       
>> If books are touting XHTML as *the* future of the web then, sorry, they are
>> just plain wrong...
>>     
You may be correct in saying that XHTML is not "the" future of the web, 
but it is definitely a step towards the future.  I would add that HTML 
4.01 is most definitely "the" past.  Here is what W3C says about XHTML: 
/The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (XHTML™) is a family of 
current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, 
and extend HTML, reformulated in XML <http://www.w3.org/XML/>. XHTML 
Family document types are all XML-based, and ultimately are designed to 
work in conjunction with XML-based user agents. XHTML is the successor 
of HTML, and a series of specifications 
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/#recommendations> has been developed for XHTML.

/We have been using XHTML 1.0 Strict and then XHTML 1.1 for about 5 
years now and have no regrets.  It encourages cleaner code, separation 
of style and presentation and has a number of requirements that 
encourage writing accessible (to screen readers, etc.) code. 

Of course, the above is true only with the 1.0 Strict and 1.1 (strict by 
definition).  If you are thinking of switching from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 
1.0 Transitional -- don't bother.  The only switch that would have 
long-term benefits would be to XHTML 1.1.  If you decide to switch, you 
will need to learn new ways of doing a few things.  Some people consider 
having to learn new ways bad, but if you are not one of them, I am 
certain the switch would be relatively painless for you.

Keep in mind also that HTML 4.01 is a standard from 1999, wheres XHTML 
1.0 was last revised in 2002 and XHTML 1.1 in 2007.


/ <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq>/
> I was thinking the same thing.  I read in one place that they
> recommended XHTML, so I started writing using it, but then found out
> that majority of people are using a browser that can't even read XHTML
> properly.  They read it as a HTML file, so they lose all the XML
> benefits making it not much different to 4.01 strict.  So, personally I
> am using 4.01 strict until HTML 5 is finished.
>   
You are correct, if what you mean to say is that IE cannot correctly 
understand the recommended media type (application/xhtml+xml) for 
XHTML.  That is why the documents have to be served as text/html.  This 
is certainly annoying to those who care, especially because all actually 
modern browsers do understand the application/xhtml+xml type, but should 
not be a reason for anyone to avoid XHTML.  In fact, if your page is 
coded properly, the only note of this mime type would be on the page is 
validated <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnsu.edu%2F>.

I think there is a fair chance that IE will understand this mime type in 
the near future.  They have been under a lot of pressure to make the 
browser not suck as badly as it does now.

As far as Quanta, I think XHTML 1.1 should be the default doctype.
> --
> Your friend,
> Scott
>
> Sent to you from a Linux computer using Kubuntu Version 8.04
> _______________________________________________
> Quanta mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/quanta
>   

-- 
Aleksey V. Lazar
Website Development
Memorial Library 3010
Minnesota State University
Mankato, MN 56001
http://www.mnsu.edu/

_______________________________________________
Quanta mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/quanta