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

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: XHTML Club

#41

Post by reconnecting »

jraph wrote: post #36
reconnecting wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! :-)

Thank you for asking.

XHTML Members(1):

Current websites that are valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional)

Back to tirreno website, it is a pure transitional HTML 4.01 without JS or CSS, thus more or less same challenges to make it W3 valid (2) in our days. Have a look.

1. https://xhtml.club/members.html

2. https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https://www.tirreno.com/&...

Re: XHTML Club

#42

Post by PaulHoule »

Circa '99 a high fraction (50%-ish) of HTML in the field was invalid, so if you were making a new web browser it had to parse invalid HTML the same way as Netscape which was one more reason we didn't get competitive web browsers.

HTML 5 specified exactly how "invalid" HTML is parsed so now there is no such thing as invalid HTML. XHTML was one of those things that never quite worked:

https://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/

Re: XHTML Club

#43

Post by rhdunn »

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.

One of the annoying things about having a living standard is that it is difficult to implement a conforming version as additional updates means that you are no longer conforming.

Versioned standards allow you to know that you are compliant to that version of the specification, and track the changes between versions -- i.e. what additional functionality do I need to implement.

With "living standards" you need to track the date/commit you last checked and do a manual diff to work out what has changed.

Re: XHTML Club

#44

Post by jraph »

netsharc wrote: post #34

> 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 (alt…

If only the repeated inline styles and abusively nested tables were the issue…

The dozens (or hundreds! have you tried GitHub recently??) HTTP requests.

The JavaScript bundles whose sizes are expressed in 10⁶ bytes.

The UIs that are fully recomputed and redrawn on each small interaction.

The auto playing videos. The images that are comparable to full res pictures (but usually empty of meaning because they are stock or AI generated).

Re: XHTML Club

#45

Post by PaulHoule »

strogonoff wrote: post #37
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 th…

The semantic web took on the XSD data types

https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

even though a lot of tools and standards (I'm looking at you SPARQL) don't really support them. My favorite serialization for RDF is Turtle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(syntax)

Re: XHTML Club

#46

Post by mimasama »

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?

> Better question, why don't we upgrade XML to do that?

XSLT which is an application of XML allows you to do a for-each: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/XML/XSLT/Refere...

Re: XHTML Club

#47

Post by jraph »

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…

> it's very clear that it's absolutely not a priority for the HTML5 working groups

I wouldn't mind as long as it keeps working, but…

> and there's a statement that future features will not necessarily be supported by the XHTML5 variant.

That's news for me, and unfortunate.

Re: XHTML Club

#48

Post by mcny »

jraph wrote: post #32
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm still hopeful.

The next version of html should be able to do all the http verbs -- get, put, patch, post, delete online, reactively without having to use a form.

There has to be a way to figure this out, even if it requires a transition period. The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is now. These things belong in the core HTML standards, not a js library you need to include in your code.

Oh that and better controls and better defaults but I guess that is something individual web browsers can implement on their own?

Re: XHTML Club

#49

Post by PaulHoule »

jraph wrote: post #39
direwolf20 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :-)

I ask you then: (1) how do you deal with the template that surrounds a large number of pages on a site? (2) how do you deal with the fact that the average web form might want to display something different based on the form contents (e.g. redraw the form if there's an error, draw something different on success?) (3) do you write anything that returns JSON or other results for AJAX or web services?

Re: XHTML Club

#50

Post by jraph »

PaulHoule wrote: post #42

Circa '99 a high fraction (50%-ish) of HTML in the field was invalid, so if you were making a new web browser it had to parse invalid HTML the same way as Netscape which was one more reason we didn't get competitive web browsers. HTML 5 specified exactly how "invalid" HTML is parsed so now there is no such thing as invalid HTML. XHTML was one of those things that never quite worked: https://friendlybit.com/html/why-x…

> there is no such thing as invalid HTML

There is. There are things that are still considered invalid, like nesting form elements for instance.

(this doesn't take away your argument though, and you were focusing on the parsing aspect).

Post reply on HN