Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Slash Open Source Project

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • Guys xhtml, 4.01 strict is a waste of time, innovate don't regress! Also it's ok to use tables when you are displaying tabular data (a calendar, stock chart, etc.). CSS-driven and standards-based design is about semnatic, relevant markup, not simply ejecting tables.

    May I refer you to some important reading material:

    Bullet Proof Web Design [simplebits.com]

    Web Standards Solutions [simplebits.com]

    and important sites:

    www.csszengarden.com [csszengarden.com]

    www.simplebits.com [simplebits.com]

    www.alistapart.com [alistapart.com]

    • Those designers that you've linked to (seem to) no little (and care little) about the reasons why xhtml isn't really xml since it's not served as xml, thereby making all of their reasons for using xhtml over html moot.

      HTML 4 is just as semantically complete as xhtml, and if xhtml isn't served as xml you get zero benefits from the xml-ness of the document.

      HTML 4 was the best choice for this and I applaud the slashcode team of making the right choice, not the popular one.
      • "HTML 4 is just as semantically complete as xhtml, and if xhtml isn't served as xml you get zero benefits from the xml-ness of the document." Yes no benefits at all, like forward compatibility, meeting accessibility standards or portability between devices (an issue I've already seen complained about on this site).
        • by Enrico Pulatzo (7139) on Tuesday September 06 2005, @05:39PM (#6286)
          Forward compatibility with what? As long as XHTML is served as HTML, User Agents treat it as HTML. This negates ANY forward compatibility you can ever hope for (other than some hackish method ala IE 5 for the Mac's DOCTYPE switcher). If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, why does the server keep calling it a dog? HTML 4 meets exactly the same accessibility standards as XHTML, as far as I've seen. Portability between devices is a semantic and CSS issue, the markup language has no bearing here. A great boon of XHTML is that you can parse it with an XML parser, but if the UA doesn't know to that, they never will use the parser. This equates to our devices needing a full fledged tag-soup-html-parser installed instead of a svelt xml parser. And it's not like you can get away with using XHTML now and flip a switch later. If you don't use XML now, a system is likely to introduce cruft that breaks your future compatibility. Case in point IE. If you use the Midas-equivalent of IE to edit a page that's got an XHTML doctype, you'll end up with font tags and inline non-semantic markup in what should be a perfectly doctype-conforming xml document.
          • You know what I have to agree with your point and after reading some other posts I can see why SlashDot is not embracing xhtml.