<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Why XHTML is a bad idea</title> <atom:link href="http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/</link> <description>You have found Friendly Bit, a web development blog. I focus on client side technologies like CSS, HTML and Javascript. You find my articles below and categories to the right.</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:50:44 +0000</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Steve Savage</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33465</link> <dc:creator>Steve Savage</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:48:03 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33465</guid> <description>After several years away from the web, I&#039;ve decided to revitalize my site.  I&#039;d been debating providing both an XHTML (for application/xhtml+xml browsers) and HTML version (for text/html browsers).I&#039;m leaning towards just &lt;em&gt;publishing&lt;/em&gt; HTML5 right now for the simple fact: if I decide to put advertisements on my site I will no longer have complete control of the markup, and I&#039;d rather have the tag-soup parser kick in then have &quot;XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag&quot; show up instead of my content.BUT, I emphasized the word publishing for a reason.   I will probably use an XHTML editor behind the scenes for the content I write, so I can use XSLTs to convert my XHTML documents to other formats.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After several years away from the web, I&#8217;ve decided to revitalize my site.  I&#8217;d been debating providing both an XHTML (for application/xhtml+xml browsers) and HTML version (for text/html browsers).</p><p>I&#8217;m leaning towards just <em>publishing</em> HTML5 right now for the simple fact: if I decide to put advertisements on my site I will no longer have complete control of the markup, and I&#8217;d rather have the tag-soup parser kick in then have &#8220;XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag&#8221; show up instead of my content.</p><p>BUT, I emphasized the word publishing for a reason.   I will probably use an XHTML editor behind the scenes for the content I write, so I can use XSLTs to convert my XHTML documents to other formats.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Web Design: What is XHTML? &#171; Obvious In Hindsight</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33343</link> <dc:creator>Web Design: What is XHTML? &#171; Obvious In Hindsight</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:50:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33343</guid> <description>[...] http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/ [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a
href="http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/</a> [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Web Design: What DOCTYPE do I use? &#171; Obvious In Hindsight</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33342</link> <dc:creator>Web Design: What DOCTYPE do I use? &#171; Obvious In Hindsight</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:03:09 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33342</guid> <description>[...] If you&#8217;d like to research an alternative opinion on why not to use XHTML, read here (Note: It&#8217;s an old article, much of it may not apply but interesting no less): http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/ [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] If you&#8217;d like to research an alternative opinion on why not to use XHTML, read here (Note: It&#8217;s an old article, much of it may not apply but interesting no less): <a
href="http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/</a> [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: MWin</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33165</link> <dc:creator>MWin</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:19:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33165</guid> <description>Hmm, didnt keep my html code snipped...try this:&lt;body&gt;
&lt;p&gt; Pragraph 1
&lt;p&gt; Pragraph 2
&lt;p&gt; Pragraph 3
&lt;/body&gt;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm, didnt keep my html code snipped&#8230;</p><p>try this:</p><p>&lt;body&gt;<br
/> &lt;p&gt; Pragraph 1<br
/> &lt;p&gt; Pragraph 2<br
/> &lt;p&gt; Pragraph 3<br
/> &lt;/body&gt;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: MWin</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33164</link> <dc:creator>MWin</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:17:52 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33164</guid> <description>One more thing...as for the looseness of html:consider following, simplified, code:&lt;code&gt;Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Pargaraph 3&lt;/code&gt;now, these 3 paragraphs, are they siblings to each other, or descendants?I&#039;m one of them programmer types, so for me this in fact is an issue...as for the above example, as far as i could find out, FireFox (3.5) considers them siblings (automatically closes all non-closed paragraphs when a new one opens, i.e. paragraphs cant contain other paragraphs, just like the html4 dtd specifies), so does IE (7), netscape considers them descendants, and amaya wouldnt let me find out at all...so, i guess thats one point on XHTMLs scoreboard...handMike</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One more thing&#8230;</p><p>as for the looseness of html:</p><p>consider following, simplified, code:</p><p><code></p><p> Paragraph 1<br
/> Paragraph 2<br
/> Pargaraph 3</p><p></code></p><p>now, these 3 paragraphs, are they siblings to each other, or descendants?</p><p>I&#8217;m one of them programmer types, so for me this in fact is an issue&#8230;</p><p>as for the above example, as far as i could find out, FireFox (3.5) considers them siblings (automatically closes all non-closed paragraphs when a new one opens, i.e. paragraphs cant contain other paragraphs, just like the html4 dtd specifies), so does IE (7), netscape considers them descendants, and amaya wouldnt let me find out at all&#8230;</p><p>so, i guess thats one point on XHTMLs scoreboard&#8230;</p><p>hand</p><p>Mike</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: MWin</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33163</link> <dc:creator>MWin</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:09:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-33163</guid> <description>Hello Everyone,i read that article, and Emil does have some points...
but i want to add something to the &quot;leave the error-handling to the browsers&quot; topic:One of the reasons why XHTML was introduced as a &quot;cleaned up&quot; HTML so-to-speak, is the increasing usage of internet on mobile devices, such as mobile phones, PDAs, that sort.I know, hardware performance is constantly increasing, but so far most mobile devices just dont have the cpu for extended html-code-analysis and exception-handling, if they had, they would be even slower as they already are...But in the end (at least until HTML5 is published, but even then) it&#039;s the webdesigner&#039;s choice which technology to use, i suppose they all have their pros and contras...Just my thoughts, have a nice day,Mike</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Everyone,</p><p>i read that article, and Emil does have some points&#8230;<br
/> but i want to add something to the &#8220;leave the error-handling to the browsers&#8221; topic:</p><p>One of the reasons why XHTML was introduced as a &#8220;cleaned up&#8221; HTML so-to-speak, is the increasing usage of internet on mobile devices, such as mobile phones, PDAs, that sort.</p><p>I know, hardware performance is constantly increasing, but so far most mobile devices just dont have the cpu for extended html-code-analysis and exception-handling, if they had, they would be even slower as they already are&#8230;</p><p>But in the end (at least until HTML5 is published, but even then) it&#8217;s the webdesigner&#8217;s choice which technology to use, i suppose they all have their pros and contras&#8230;</p><p>Just my thoughts, have a nice day,</p><p>Mike</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jim Westergren</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-31724</link> <dc:creator>Jim Westergren</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:22:41 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-31724</guid> <description>Oh, that&#039;s well. HTML5 have quite many new elements which I think will be great for usability and perhaps even future SEO. Looking forward to it.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, that&#8217;s well. HTML5 have quite many new elements which I think will be great for usability and perhaps even future SEO. Looking forward to it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Emil Stenström</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-31713</link> <dc:creator>Emil Stenström</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:21:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-31713</guid> <description>@Jim Westergren: Nice that you liked the article :)Since HTML5 is the future, it shouldn&#039;t matter if you use HTML 4 Strict, or XHTML 1.0 Strict, they are all incorporated into HTML5. I truly believe that&#039;s the best thing for the future of the web. It will take a couple of years, but browsers are already building offline storage and stuff like that. Also, big parts of the spec are just respecifications of how browsers have implemented stuff.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jim Westergren: Nice that you liked the article :)</p><p>Since HTML5 is the future, it shouldn&#8217;t matter if you use HTML 4 Strict, or XHTML 1.0 Strict, they are all incorporated into HTML5. I truly believe that&#8217;s the best thing for the future of the web. It will take a couple of years, but browsers are already building offline storage and stuff like that. Also, big parts of the spec are just respecifications of how browsers have implemented stuff.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jim Westergren</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-31693</link> <dc:creator>Jim Westergren</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:59:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-31693</guid> <description>Hi Emil,Good article and good point.On my latest major site that I am currently building I am using XHTML 1.0 strict - mostly to be prepared for the future.I tried sending it in XML with a similar PHP script that you have here but I disabled that after some testing. I can&#039;t have my site breaking with parsing error because I missed to close a p element or forgot to unescape an &amp; in an URL. Can&#039;t take that risk.Perhaps HTML 5 is the way to go. I have read some on that. But I guess it will take quite some years for that to be fully ready and supported.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Emil,</p><p>Good article and good point.</p><p>On my latest major site that I am currently building I am using XHTML 1.0 strict &#8211; mostly to be prepared for the future.</p><p>I tried sending it in XML with a similar PHP script that you have here but I disabled that after some testing. I can&#8217;t have my site breaking with parsing error because I missed to close a p element or forgot to unescape an &amp; in an URL. Can&#8217;t take that risk.</p><p>Perhaps HTML 5 is the way to go. I have read some on that. But I guess it will take quite some years for that to be fully ready and supported.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Caracol y Punto &#187; Blog Archive &#187; HTML ó XHTML</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-31243</link> <dc:creator>Caracol y Punto &#187; Blog Archive &#187; HTML ó XHTML</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:11:27 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-31243</guid> <description>[...] http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/ [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a
href="http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/</a> [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Best Practices &#187; Blog Archive &#187; XHTML versus HTML</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30766</link> <dc:creator>Best Practices &#187; Blog Archive &#187; XHTML versus HTML</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:08:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30766</guid> <description>[...] I can&#8217;t say that either side has done anything to absolutely convince me, but Emil makes a compelling case with his article, Why XHTML is a bad idea. [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I can&#8217;t say that either side has done anything to absolutely convince me, but Emil makes a compelling case with his article, Why XHTML is a bad idea. [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: How Microformats Will Change the Web &#171; Brian Cray’s Weblog</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30560</link> <dc:creator>How Microformats Will Change the Web &#171; Brian Cray’s Weblog</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:32:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30560</guid> <description>[...] the false perception that there is a bigger cause. It&#8217;s just created a lot of confusion. See: 1, 2, 3, 4 for just a few [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the false perception that there is a bigger cause. It&#8217;s just created a lot of confusion. See: 1, 2, 3, 4 for just a few [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: xhtml &#171; Rofrol blog</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30473</link> <dc:creator>xhtml &#171; Rofrol blog</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:55:12 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30473</guid> <description>[...] Emil Stenström - Why XHTML is a bad idea [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Emil Stenström &#8211; Why XHTML is a bad idea [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Emil Stenström</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30468</link> <dc:creator>Emil Stenström</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:53:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30468</guid> <description>@Christian: There is a difference. You can &lt;strong&gt;think&lt;/strong&gt; that you learn HTML, XHTML, or CSS in 4 days, but you really haven&#039;t. All you know by that time is enough to get you by. In the case of HTML and CSS, it isn&#039;t that bad, but for XHTML it really breaks things. Severely.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Christian: There is a difference. You can <strong>think</strong> that you learn HTML, XHTML, or CSS in 4 days, but you really haven&#8217;t. All you know by that time is enough to get you by. In the case of HTML and CSS, it isn&#8217;t that bad, but for XHTML it really breaks things. Severely.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: RomanAge</title><link>http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30455</link> <dc:creator>RomanAge</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:34:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/#comment-30455</guid> <description>Having some programming skill will be much more common for normal people in the future, a bit like reading and writing has been for a long time (avaliable to people from age 6). More and more people will use these skills merely as a tool that allow them to do whatever they are interested in: art, science, communicating... therefore being a professional programmer (and just that) may loose a lot of its value (unless very specialized), let&#039;s get used to that, have trust in people&#039;s capacity, and not fear a standart even if it is more demanding. I believe XHTML is a move in the right direction.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having some programming skill will be much more common for normal people in the future, a bit like reading and writing has been for a long time (avaliable to people from age 6). More and more people will use these skills merely as a tool that allow them to do whatever they are interested in: art, science, communicating&#8230; therefore being a professional programmer (and just that) may loose a lot of its value (unless very specialized), let&#8217;s get used to that, have trust in people&#8217;s capacity, and not fear a standart even if it is more demanding. I believe XHTML is a move in the right direction.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Dramatically improve the speed and reliability of your blog!

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 21/36 queries in 0.070 seconds using disk

Served from: c8.67.364a.static.theplanet.com @ 2010-03-15 19:48:17 -->