“In this two-part series, Edd Dumbill examines the various ways forward for HTML that Web authors, browser developers, and standards bodies propose. This series covers the incremental approach embodied by the WHATWG specifications and the radical cleanup of XHTML proposed by the W3C. Additionally, the author gives an overview of the W3C’s new Rich Client Activity. Here in Part 2, Edd focuses on the work in process at the W3C to specify the future of Web markup.”
They are going to do something with the forms!!
:o)
Form validation and input constraints are dealt with for you rather than you having to deal with it in a script…. Heading levels are dealt with automatically via the context the <section> <h>blah</h></section> set is located with respect to the document structure.
Dude!!! all elements can now have a src attribute… so that anchor can now just use an image with out the use of JS!!!
XHTML 2.0 looks like it will roxor
XHTML 2.0 is great, but…
First, companies need to adopt XHTML 1.0 or 1.1. Most companies nowadays still use invalid HTML for economic reasons. XHTML is pricy because you take a whole lot more time to create a web site with valid code. A table-based web site with invalid HTML can take 3 or 4 times less time than a CSS + XHTML web site. And there is fierce competition in the web design industry.
Also, XHTML is not supported in IE yet, unless you send the page as text/html (no poin then).
As most importantly… What are the benefits for the visitor of the web site to have a valid XHTML web site?
A table-based web site with invalid HTML can take 3 or 4 times less time than a CSS + XHTML web site. And there is fierce competition in the web design industry.
The real problem is table-based website are completely unmaintainable especially when it comes to change some design. It is very priced and time comsuming at the long term. Tables are designed for listing datas not for making layout for a website.
Also, XHTML is not supported in IE yet, unless you send the page as text/html (no poin then).
This is the result of lack of innovation for five years from Microsoft. Instead of implementing w3c standards, Microsoft set their browsers in lethargics by not ever bothering to fix issues like png transpareny (most modern browsers support that feature). Now they have problem with most of XHTML due to their own stupidities and anti-competition nature.
As most importantly… What are the benefits for the visitor of the web site to have a valid XHTML web site?
A valid XHTML web means that website well presented and well structured. Future maintainers will be able to easily modify the layout. There are plenty non-IE browsers to support the task. The most important is to educates peope about their habit to use browser. As web designer, I prefer to have a well designed website with a well structured codes i.e well balanced.
From my experience, there are so little companies that have web designers who know how CSS works that when a customer asks to modify a CSS web site, the company just redesign the page from scratch using tables, so in most cases you loose even more money (time writing valid XHTML & CSS code + time redesigning a web page with invalid HTML code).
And I agree that a valid XHTML page mean that the web site is well structured, but if you want valid HTML code, you have guidelines that basically force you to have structured code, otherwise it is invalid. Again, for the end user, if I write:
<p>Some text here
or:
<p>Some text here</p>
There is no difference at all. And for the company it is a whole lot cheaper. Regarding maintenance, I find it a real nightmare to have to dig into the CSS style sheet to see how elements are placed to move them somewhere else. Using tables it is a lot more straight-forward.
try learning the right way then and you should have no problem.
Wish I had some mod points.
Okay, you obviously seem to be missing the ‘X’ in XHTML. Of course you need to write structured HTML if you’re using XHTML, because it’s an XML document – that’s the whole point of it. If you don’t like it, HTML 4.01 is still kicking about. It doesn’t have these ‘restrictions’.
Personally, I find the advantages of XHTML far far outstrip the disadvantages. I find table layout absolutely unbearable (which td element is this one… whoops, there goes the layout), it bloats file sizes beyond the point of stupidity (which in turn wastes bandwidth), it slows down rendering to a crawl, kills almost any hope you have for creating an accessible site. I’m sure I can think up a few more if I had the time.
Instead, a properly formed XHTML document can at least guarantee I have the browser in standards mode (which means I at least have a chance my CSS will behave the way it’s supposed to, not to mention drastically speed up rendering) and can be compatible with any web device (at a decent speed). It can also reduce server load and bandwidth bills by serving up smaller files (no unnecessary presentation tags) and by caching the presentation document (CSS).
Yes, XHTML+CSS can be abused like HTML has been and yes, it does have a learning curve to it. However, in my view its advantages far, far outstrip the disadvantages. Besides, if you’re seriously being told by a web design company that in order to update a XHTML+CSS site they need to redesign from scratch, find another company.
(which means I at least have a chance my CSS will behave the way it’s supposed to, not to mention drastically speed up rendering) and can be compatible with any web device (at a decent speed). It can also reduce server load and bandwidth bills by serving up smaller files
The above arguments don’t stand. CSS doesn’t look the same in each browsers, and you need to use hacks for both IE5.5 and IE6. To differenciate Opera and Mozilla, there is no way to use hacks, and sometimes the design looks different in both of them.
Regarding compatibility with any web device, it is not unless you write a CSS style sheet specially targetted to it. If you use just one stylesheet for screen, overhead projector, handheld and printer, you can’t say it’s “compatible”. You basically need a different style sheet for each device. Regarding bandwith bills, most of the time there is plenty of bandwidth remaining each months in todays plans (1TB transfer for $7.95/month: http://www.dreamhost.com/shared/), so…
Besides, if you’re seriously being told by a web design company that in order to update a XHTML+CSS site they need to redesign from scratch, find another company.
Do you work in the web design industry? Most companies will do just that. Where I work, we are only 2 designers who know XHTML + CSS. The company forces us to use tables because it is faster.
CSS doesn’t look the same in browers at the moment, sure. If you want to go nuts and use CSS elements that are badly supported then you’re right. However, all the sites I’ve created I’ve been able to get away with using a single stylesheet and careful design. Yes, it can be a pain, but CSS support in the major browsers is only getting better as time goes by. It won’t be long until they all _do_ render the same.
Again yes, you can write a stylesheet for any web device if you like, but the whole point is that you don’t have to. XHTML will display just fine without a stylesheet on any device, so if you’re only targetting a desktop browser, you only need to write a stylesheet for it. The point is that you haven’t alienated any other potential audiences.
Here’s another point worth mentioning: how about keeping your users happy? It’s undeniable that table-based layouts are far slower to download and to render. CSS-based XHTML documents generally have a smaller file size (faster to download), but are digested by web browers far easier, which leads to faster rendering times, which leads to your page being displayed quicker. Response times are important to users, so any advantage you can present over your competition is worth following, surely?
And yes, as a matter of fact, I am one of the main web developers for my company. It has become a business decision for us to transition all of our sites to XHTML for exactly all of the reasons I have explained.
what are the benies to a user? how abut accessibility?
soon the ADA will be enforced in the US on websites, xhtml makes screen readers a lot easier to develop.
plus, a company that needs to have their content accessible to a wide variety of devices is stupid if they do not use xhtml + css… then you just develop one document and can have multiple css files for multiple devices.
try learning the right way then and you should have no problem.
No that simple. I myself teach CSS and XHTML 2x a week. There are browser behaviors that just don’t make sense at all, and there are inconsistencies between IE, Opera, Mozilla and other browsers. If you browse through the lists such as css-discuss you’ll see that many many people, including gurus have problems. And there are things you just can’t do without tables nowadays.
what are the benies to a user? how abut accessibility?
Why not, but this accounts maybe for 1% of the traffic of general-purpose web sites.
the ADA will be enforced in the US on websites, xhtml makes screen readers a lot easier to develop.
Again, a law won’t change the whole web. It’s like forcing doctors to cure cancer. This won’t happen. And this law may only be enforced in the US.
The Americans with Disabilities Act can change a lot.
Anyway, I KNOW how much of a pain it is to do CSS… but that is the fault of IE (Safari and Opera and FF render my single CSS files fine without me having to mess around with them)
IE is a severe pain in the butt, but that is something we have to live with for a year or so more until they come out with IE 7 which should at least have as good CSS support as FF.
I do hope that you do not tell your students to use table layouts. tables are the WORST things to use to lay out elements.
I do hope that you do not tell your students to use table layouts. tables are the WORST things to use to lay out elements.
I explain them the pros and cons of both ways, but I’m quite sure they will be forced to use tables where they work.
The competitors (all that I know) use all tables in their customers portfolios.
And I bet if you did an analysis of the bandwidth savings, a company would go with the XHTML/CSS folks.
As I said, for less than $8 you get 1TB of bandwidth. Do you need more than that? If you use less than this, you won’t pay less anyway, so there is no saving in terms of bucks.
if it truly was so cheap to run a high volume server on table based layout, then certainly Yahoo, and slashdot would have stuck to this design.
Using xhtml with css (in yahoo’s and /.s case, html 4.01 transitional with out tables) means that to redesign your content, you simply need to make a new CSS file/header (well,unless you use lots of in-line css but that would be stupid) then poof, an entirely new style with the same content and you did not have to touch a dang thing on the page content.
you are very concerned about that initial bump onto the new paradigm, but once that is done, maintenance is easy.
I don’t see the need for companies to first use XHTML 1.0 or 1.1. Most pros doing web design use smart tools like Dreamweaver that take a ton of that pain out of the process and can test validate your code. Using such tools makes it not that difficult to go to XHTML x.x.
As for IE not supporting XHTML, well I think that kind of kills the whole point of it. People probably won’t use XHTML until it’s supported well in IE for at least 2 years so that there’s good marketshare.
Benefits? Well being much closer to valid XML then HTML is, I think you’ll find it’s more future proof and XML tools can be used with it.
Also, XHTML is not supported in IE yet, unless you send the page as text/html (no poin then).
works in IE by sending xhtml as application/xml:
http://204.210.201.48/download/
Your page isn’t valid: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2F204.210….
it used to validate… there must have been a bug in the validator before… it’s fixed now.