E-mail List Archives

Re: W3C HTML/XHTML References


From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Jun 30, 2005 11:50AM

Hello James,

Thanks for the input.

A couple of years ago I, too, switched from XHTM 1.0 to HTML 4.01, after having read the discussion on how to serve XHTM docs, and Ian Hickson's article.

(Mark 'dive-into-mark' Pilgrim did too make the switch.)

What I now have understood, is that XHTML docs can be properly served as a text/html MIME-typ, if the XML declaration is omitted.

Also, what I deduce form Terence's reply [1], is that XHTML is the preferred doctype for cell phones.

With these two arguments I am willing to switch back to XHTML docs (sigh).

I would like to know if there are other systems/user agents that I need to take into account for my final decision on using XHTML.

As I am not technically educated, I myself really cannot make such a decision. I have to read what other, technically skilled people says on the subject.

My guideline on this decision is to give higher priority to how the end users are affected, rather than technical (de facto) standards and notes.
After all, standards are for the benefit of humans, not the other way around.

All the above does not really matter (for me), as I create Web pages for my personal use that few people will ever read. Still, since I begun reading the W3C docs in 1999, I have had an urge to do it the right way.

Which is very frustrating: Does it really matter if I stick to the W3C de facto standards, or ISO standard, when it seems to be working (for the end users) any way?

Nonetheless, using whatever standards, it helps spread awareness of good Web page code, which the future will benefit, I suppose.

Thomas Jedenfelt
(non-professional Web developer since 1997)

Subject: ISO-HTML http://www.webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread.php?thread=2368&;id=6893#post15

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Pickering"
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:07:28 -0700
> Not off topic at all, Thomas -- serving Web pages correctly is an
> integral component of Accessibility. Ian Hickson's famous article
> that you provided a link too is the classic reference and to a
> large extent influenced me to initially eschew XHTML. Much water
> has flown over the dam since that article, but the premises are
> still valid. However, the W3C -- and the Web authoring community at
> large -- has not been idle on this point. I have found the
> following references particularly helpful:
> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/serving-xhtml/
> http://www.w3.org/2003/01/xhtml-mimetype/content-negotiation
> http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php
> With XHTML 2.0 "coming down the Pike", it is especially important
> to understand the principles of serving XHTML correctly.
> Pickering Pages: http://www.jp29.org/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Jedenfelt"
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:31 AM
> Although it might be off topic on this forum, this article may be of interest:
> 'Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful'
> http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1031465247&;count=1
> by Ian 'Hixie' Hickson - has been (is?) working with W3C.
> Regards,
> Thomas Jedenfelt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Pickering"
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:23:49 -0700
> >
> > This reference has probably been posted here before, but IMO The
> > W3C HTML and XHTML Frequently Answered Questions Page
> > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq offers especially good
> > information relating to the production (and importance) of valid
> > Markup, the functionality of older and newer user agents
> > (particularly graphical Browsers), backward compatability and the
> > principles of correctly serving XHTML (Media type designations).
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/results
> > provides a very illuminating examination of XHTML processing by XML
> > compatible Browsers (just about all current graphical Browsers).
> >
> > James Pickering
> >
> > Pickering Pages: http://www.jp29.org/


Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com