xhtml - am I nuts or what?

#1 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml. So I
thought I'd do a bit more reseacrh, and find out just what i needed to
change in order to get this skill. I also took an existing page and
validated it using xhtml strict, and then looked at in the browser, and
it was a bit wonky!!

So off I went again, searching for the solution for CSS with xhtml and I
came across a website, and this is what they say:

> Creating a two column layout without tables.
> With CSS you can create well laid out pages without using tables. Let us see how we can create a two column layout with header and footer without tables
> Step one: Write the XHTML. To create layout without tables we need a marked up page with specific areas to which we can apply our styles. So let us write a XHTML page with separate footer, header and two columns. This is the XHTML.
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused? Maybe I'm already
using xhtml!!!

Catherine

#2 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

pecan wrote:

> I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
> found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml.

You mean you want some extra hard labor and decided that xhtml is a good way
to get deep into pointless trouble. In that case, you are quite right.

> So I thought I'd do a bit more reseacrh,

A bit more? There _is_ such a thing as knowing too much and yet far too
little, and XHTML is a good area for such adventures. When you know just a
little about it, you know much more than you need to and get surely too
little to understand where you should and where you should not try to use
it.

> I also took an existing page and
> validated it using xhtml strict, and then looked at in the browser,
> and it was a bit wonky!!

Yet another exercise in creating futile work. It's not really about XHTML,
it's about cleaning up existing pages. If you just validate a poorly written
page (and most pages are poorly written), you mostly just break it into
pieces, since it relied on Quirks Mode (usually without its author knowing
about this at all), and now you moved it away from the cosy dirt of
Quirkness.

>> Creating a two column layout without tables.

Not enough pointless work yet, I presume.

>> This is the XHTML. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML
>> 4.0 Transitional//EN">

Well, at least it preserves Quirks Mode, but by definition Quirks Mode is
undocumented, quirky, and full of surprises and traps.

> Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused?

Yes. I mean yes, you probably are, and he probably is, but I think you have
some hope since you posted here.

Use HTML 4.01 Strict for new pages, plus some nonstandard markup (like
<nobr> and <wbr> for line break control) or Transitional features (for
special occasions like <ol start="10") when you know what you are doing.
Leave old pages as they are, unless you must update their content.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

#3 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

pecan wrote:
> I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
> found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml. So I
> thought I'd do a bit more reseacrh, and find out just what i needed to
> change in order to get this skill. I also took an existing page and
> validated it using xhtml strict, and then looked at in the browser, and
> it was a bit wonky!!
>
> So off I went again, searching for the solution for CSS with xhtml and I
> came across a website, and this is what they say:
>
>> Creating a two column layout without tables. With CSS you can create
>> well laid out pages without using tables. Let us see how we can create
>> a two column layout with header and footer without tables
>> Step one: Write the XHTML. To create layout without tables we need a
>> marked up page with specific areas to which we can apply our styles.
>> So let us write a XHTML page with separate footer, header and two
>> columns. This is the XHTML.
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>
> Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused? Maybe I'm already
> using xhtml!!!

No, the writer is confused. Or he took a page that was originally based
on HTML 4 and decided to update it for XHTML but didn't do a thorough job.

#4 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

pecan <pecan@NOSPAMrouxville.info> writes:

> I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
> found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml.

XHTML is pointless in the real world, since no version of IE so far
actually supports it. IE doesn't parse it as all if you serve it with
the correct MIME type for it, and if it's served as text/html, IE
simply parses it as HTML. Given that, you're effectively limited to
the subset of XHTML that's just HTML with a few extra slashes in
it - and what's the point in that?

I do, however, find it to be a useful bogosity indicator when I see
it in job listings. It often indicates a clueless manager who's driven
more by popular buzzwords than practicality - not the kind of person I
want to work for. I wouldn't rule out a job based on that alone, but I
*would* set my BS detector at maximum during the interview. :-)

> Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused?

A *lot* of people are confused by XHTML. It gets far, far more hype
than it deserves.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

#5 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> pecan wrote:
>
>> I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
>> found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml.
>
> You mean you want some extra hard labor and decided that xhtml is a good
> way to get deep into pointless trouble. In that case, you are quite right.
>
>> So I thought I'd do a bit more reseacrh,
>
> A bit more? There _is_ such a thing as knowing too much and yet far too
> little, and XHTML is a good area for such adventures. When you know just
> a little about it, you know much more than you need to and get surely
> too little to understand where you should and where you should not try
> to use it.
>
>> I also took an existing page and
>> validated it using xhtml strict, and then looked at in the browser,
>> and it was a bit wonky!!
>
> Yet another exercise in creating futile work. It's not really about
> XHTML, it's about cleaning up existing pages. If you just validate a
> poorly written page (and most pages are poorly written), you mostly just
> break it into pieces, since it relied on Quirks Mode (usually without
> its author knowing about this at all), and now you moved it away from
> the cosy dirt of Quirkness.
>
>>> Creating a two column layout without tables.
>
> Not enough pointless work yet, I presume.
>
>>> This is the XHTML. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML
>>> 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>
> Well, at least it preserves Quirks Mode, but by definition Quirks Mode
> is undocumented, quirky, and full of surprises and traps.
>
>> Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused?
>
> Yes. I mean yes, you probably are, and he probably is, but I think you
> have some hope since you posted here.
>
> Use HTML 4.01 Strict for new pages, plus some nonstandard markup (like
> <nobr> and <wbr> for line break control) or Transitional features (for
> special occasions like <ol start="10") when you know what you are doing.
> Leave old pages as they are, unless you must update their content.
>

I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
Nothing's changed.

#6 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

Sherm Pendley wrote:
> pecan <pecan@NOSPAMrouxville.info> writes:
>
>> I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
>> found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml.
>
> XHTML is pointless in the real world, since no version of IE so far
> actually supports it. IE doesn't parse it as all if you serve it with
> the correct MIME type for it, and if it's served as text/html, IE
> simply parses it as HTML. Given that, you're effectively limited to
> the subset of XHTML that's just HTML with a few extra slashes in
> it - and what's the point in that?
>
> I do, however, find it to be a useful bogosity indicator when I see
> it in job listings. It often indicates a clueless manager who's driven
> more by popular buzzwords than practicality - not the kind of person I
> want to work for. I wouldn't rule out a job based on that alone, but I
> *would* set my BS detector at maximum during the interview. :-)
>
>> Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused?
>
> A *lot* of people are confused by XHTML. It gets far, far more hype
> than it deserves.
>
> sherm--
>

That's kind of what I gathered after an hour or so. I'm in desperate
need of work, though, so if I need to learn enough just to dissuade the
client from wanting it, then that's what I'll have to do. Sigh.
Also... I've always coded using notepad and my brain, and I'm being
forced into finding an Adobe package - Dreamweaver and the rest - just
so i can convince someone who may employ me that I know what I'm doing.

Catherine

#7 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

pecan <pecan@NOSPAMrouxville.info> writes:

> I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
> Nothing's changed.

Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
far less attitude.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

#8 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

On 25 Sep, 18:42, Sherm Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.org> wrote:

> Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
> there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
> far less attitude.

Some can do the precision, but few the accuracy.

#9 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

On 25 Sep, 18:07, pecan <pe...@NOSPAMrouxville.info> wrote:

> I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
> Nothing's changed.

Exactly! Once we can finally get decent support for this new HTML 4.01
stuff, everything will be rosy 8-)

#10 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 11:08 PM

Andy Dingley wrote:

> On 25 Sep, 18:07, pecan <pe...@NOSPAMrouxville.info> wrote:
>
>> I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
>> Nothing's changed.
>
> Exactly! Once we can finally get decent support for this new HTML 4.01
> stuff, everything will be rosy 8-)

You're quite an optimist. Shouldn't we first wait until at least some
browser supports HTML 2.0?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode