Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

XHTML Club

xhtml.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 131 posts

Re: XHTML Club

#31

Post by reconnecting »

jraph wrote: post #26
reconnecting wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not “your HTML”, it’s HTML 4.01 from 1999, when XHTML 1.0 is from 2000. The common is the origins of validations that comes from W3 validator (1). Same badges, same limits. 1. https://validator.w3.org/

Sorry, I edited my reply in the meantime and I probably broke your citation. but what you are describing is XHTML 1.0, not XHTML in general. HTML5 has its XHTML variant too, sometimes called XHTML 5.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) is requirements of XHTML club, thus my comparison with HTML 4.01

Re: XHTML Club

#32

Post by jraph »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #27
jraph wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a stretch. Your link says > Is this HTML5? > In short: Yes. See also [1]. That HTML5 was used in marketing doesn't make the technical term disappear. HTML5 is a bit more precise than HTML, it refers to the living standard that's currently in use, as opposed to HTML 4.01 and the previous versions of HTML. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5

It's not a technical term. Nowhere in the current HTML standard will you find a versioning of HTML. That's why it's now called a "living standard". You will never find a HTML6 or higher. That note you found is to help with any confusion.

> You will never find a HTML6 or higher

You might be right, but we don't know yet. Microsoft said that for Windows 10.

You might also be right that the current Living Standard specification doesn't really call it HTML5, but you'll find many people writing HTML for a living say HTML5 to refer to it, and telling them that HTML5 doesn't exist doesn't really help and is a bit wrong too if you have a descriptive approach to languages.

Re: XHTML Club

#33

Post by [deleted] »

al_borland wrote: post #18

I was in college when XHTML was all the rage and everything we wrote had to pass validation. I still get uncomfortable adding breaks without closing them.

[deleted]

Re: XHTML Club

#34

Post by netsharc »

> Validation is ignored, and most modern sites are built with little concern for structure or longevity.

I remember going online with a modem in the 90s. There was a new ISP in town, but their homepage took forever to load. I viewed the source, and whatever page generator they were rendered the page as HTML tables (this was fine back then), and added repetitive style tags to every table cell instead of using CSS (although I wonder if this was before CSS) or not doing so for empty cells, and that their homepage was so bloated and slow to load on dial-up.

I wonder how it is nowadays. But I suppose in the age that accomodates apps like Teams and Slack, who cares?

Re: XHTML Club

#35

Post by direwolf20 »

GavinAnderegg wrote: post #19

In the early 2000s I was 100% sold on the idea of strict XHTML documents and the semantic web. I loved the idea that all web pages could be XML documents which easily provided their data for other sources. If you marked your document with, an XHTML 1.0 Strict or XHTML 1.1 doctype, a web browser was supposed to show an error if the page contained an XML error. Problem was, it was a bit of a pain to get this right, so…

You're annoyed when people are trying to keep the dream alive?

Since HTML5 specifies how to handle all parse errors, and the handling of an XML self-closing tag is to ignore it unless it's part of an unquoted attribute value, it's valid HTML5.

Re: XHTML Club

#36

Post by jraph »

reconnecting wrote: post #31
jraph wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I edited my reply in the meantime and I probably broke your citation. but what you are describing is XHTML 1.0, not XHTML in general. HTML5 has its XHTML variant too, sometimes called XHTML 5.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) is requirements of XHTML club, thus my comparison with HTML 4.01

> Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) is requirements of XHTML club

Where do you see this?

I see that they do use XHTML 1.0 Strict but I don't see this requirement written.

Brad, we need your clarification here, it's critical, we need you to tell us which one of us is wrong! :-)

Re: XHTML Club

#37

Post by strogonoff »

GavinAnderegg wrote: post #19

In the early 2000s I was 100% sold on the idea of strict XHTML documents and the semantic web. I loved the idea that all web pages could be XML documents which easily provided their data for other sources. If you marked your document with, an XHTML 1.0 Strict or XHTML 1.1 doctype, a web browser was supposed to show an error if the page contained an XML error. Problem was, it was a bit of a pain to get this right, so…

As someone who has gotten into the idea of semantic Web long after XHTML was all the rage[0], I somewhat resent that semantic Web and XML are so often lumped together[1]. After all, XML is just one serialisation mechanism for linked data.

[0] I don’t dislike XHTML. The snob in me loves the idea. Sure, had XHTML been The Standard it would have been so much more difficult to publish my first website at the age of 14 that I’m not sure I would have gotten into building for Web at all, but is it necessarily a good thing if our field is based on technology so forgiving to malformed input that a middle school pupil can pass for an engineer? and while I do omit closing tags when allowed by the spec, are the savings worth remembering these complicated rules for when they can be omitted, and is it worth maintaining all this branching that allows parsers to handle invalid markup, when barely any HTML is hand-written these days?

[1] Usually it is to the detriment of the former: the latter tends to be ill-regarded by today’s average Web developer used to JSON (even as they hail various schema-related additions on top of JSON that essentially try to make it do things XML can, but worse).

Re: XHTML Club

#38

Post by direwolf20 »

radicalethics wrote: post #9
jraph wrote: post #2

In the linked article: > you should master the HTML programming¹ language The footnote reads: > 1. This is a common debate - but for simplicity sake I'm just calling it this. It's not really a debate, HTML is a markup language [1], not a programming language: you annotate a document with its structure and its formatting. You are not really programming when you write HTML (the markup is not procedural) (and this is no…

What happens if I simply add an iterator mechanism to HTML (well, I guess we need variables too)? Is it no longer a markup language here (I won't add anything else): Better question, why don't we upgrade XML to do that?

That's basically the design of PHP with different syntax.

Nobody uses PHP this way any more though — people treat it like Python or Node and write the entire codebase inside a big JSP is similar with different syntax again — nobody uses JSP either

I think ASP too but I never used that

Re: XHTML Club

#39

Post by jraph »

direwolf20 wrote: post #38
radicalethics wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if I simply add an iterator mechanism to HTML (well, I guess we need variables too)? Is it no longer a markup language here (I won't add anything else): Better question, why don't we upgrade XML to do that?

That's basically the design of PHP with different syntax. Nobody uses PHP this way any more though — people treat it like Python or Node and write the entire codebase inside a big JSP is similar with different syntax again — nobody uses JSP either I think ASP too but I never used that

You could have some client side JavaScript handle your for nodes as well. That's how I imagined what OP described actually.

> Nobody uses PHP this way any more though

Well… I have bad news.

I do, for one :-)

Re: XHTML Club

#40

Post by swiftcoder »

hannob wrote: post #13

I used to create a number of simple web pages in XHTML back in the days when we believed XHTML was the future. Recently, while going through and restructuring some of my old "online stuff", I learned that XHTML really isn't in a state that I'd want to use it any more: * XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 are officially deprecated by the W3C. * XHTML5 exists as a variant of HTML5. However, it's very clear that it's absolutely not a pr…

> If you do a 'view source' in Firefox on a completely valid XHTML 1.0/1.1 page, it'll redline the XML declaration like it's something wrong

Is the page actually being served as "application/xhtml+xml"? Most xhtml sites aren't, in which case the browser is indeed interpreting those as invalid declarations in a regular old html document

Post reply on HN