Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

X/HTML5 vs XHTML2

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 11:03

So, which one should I pick for a new imageboard script currently in the making?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 11:35

Fuck you. Anyone agrees with me?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 11:41

Don't hardcode it, dumbass.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 11:44

>>3
I didn't mean hardcoding it, just that which one should I pick the first to implement, you fuckwit.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 12:08

Obviously the most widely supported one then. HTML4.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 12:16

HTML4

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 12:36

(X)HTML is fucking lame. Do the site in pure SVG.
e.g. http://www.eminerllc.com/demos/SVG/Menu.svg

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 13:30

>>7
scalable isn't a good thing, specially with fonts

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 13:34

>>7
SVG is fucking XML. Do the site in pure LaTeX.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 14:40

Fuck you, guys - you all are fucking useless. I'll go just ask /code/ then.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 14:48

God, you are lame! For your info HTML5 and XHTML 1.1 are the same. HTML5 only makes provisions for browser implementors...

gb2/gaia

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 14:57

>>11
Umm, they are definitely not.

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#syntax

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 15:08

1.1.1. Relationship to HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, DOM2 HTML

This section is non-normative.

This specification represents a new version of HTML4 and XHTML1, along with a new version of the associated DOM2 HTML API. Migration from HTML4 or XHTML1 to the format and APIs described in this specification should in most cases be straightforward, as care has been taken to ensure that backwards-compatibility is retained.

Read the fucking document... And HTML5 is not even past draft stage while XHTML 1.1 is normative since a good while.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 17:14

>>7
http://www.eminerllc.com/demos/PowerPlant/PowerPlant.html

LOL

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 17:21

>>14
XML Parsing Error: prefix not bound to a namespace

pretty much occurs in EVERYTHING there

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 17:22

>>1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 18:24

html5 doesnt exist yet. if it did, use it. it is far superior to all the previous versions.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 3:29

>>1
HTML5 > HTML 4 > XHTML faggotry

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 13:10

>>17
It kind of does exist. Opera9.14 and newer support at least the forms part of it, and Firefox 3 also does.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 17:19

XHTML 2 is far superior to HTML5.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 19:04

>>20
<sarcasm>Yeah, XHTML2 is superior because it will leverage the synergies of enterprise development for your stakeholders.</sarcasm>

Whereas HTML4 now, and HTML5 in future, is useful for communicating with people.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 19:05

>>20
<sarcasm>Yeah, XHTML2 is superior because it will leverage the synergies of enterprise development for your stakeholders.</sarcasm>

Whereas HTML4 now, and HTML5 in future, is merely useful for communicating with other people.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 19:06

>>22
>>21
gtfo spammer

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 19:22

HTML5 is for faggots who are too lazy to close their br tags.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 19:45

You'd imagine that programmers of all people would be able to appreciate the consistency, simplicity, strictness, and better structure of XHTML.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 20:12

>>25
I'd imagine that programmers of all people would be able to appreciate that they don't fully understand XHTML or why it's awful.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 20:24

>>26
It's funny, because your post was only hot air.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-17 21:07

use plaintext

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 2:36

xhtml is nice because you can run it straight through an xml parser. but html is equally easy to parse with the right tools. xhtml has been integrated and used quite nicely on Blogger.com's templates. that kind of thing is the only difference of which i know that is a real big difference between xhtml and html.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 3:15

XHTML is for enterprise faggots. It's like the loser version of HTML.

I'M ANONYMOUS
SON OF A BITCH XHTML
XHTML IS PIG
DO YOU WANT CASE-SENSITIVE?
DO YOU WANT NEEDLESS CHARACTERS?
XHTML IS PIG DISGUSTING
THE W3C ARE MURDERERS
FUCKING XML

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 4:54

>>29
WHY NOT JUST FUCKING STORE DATA IN BINARY FORMAT STUPID PIECE OF FUQIN SHIT ENTERPRISE FAGGOTRY AND THEIR TEXT BASED MARK UP LANGUAGE WHAT THE FUCK

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 5:18

Fucking ``Web2.0'' faggot bullshite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xhtml#Common errors

constructs as complex as the following may be necessary:

 <style type="text/css">
 <!--/*--><![CDATA[/*><!--*/
 p { color: green; }
 /*]]>*/-->
 </style>
 
 <script type="text/javascript">
 <!--//--><![CDATA[//><!--
 function nothing() { }
 //--><!]]>
 </script>

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 5:22

OK fuck XHTML, XForms, XDOM, XFrames and any other XShit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Events#Example_of_XML_Events_using_Listener_in_XForms
I mean what the fuck is that. That's like a Java-style DOM.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 5:25

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Error_handling

A HTML-5 browser should be flexible in handling incorrect syntax, unlike with XHTML, where the browser must refuse to render a document at all even if there is just one illegal character or missing close tag.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 5:32

WHY NOT JUST FUCKING STORE DATA IN BINARY FORMAT STUPID PIECE OF FUQIN SHIT ENTERPRISE FAGGOTRY AND THEIR TEXT BASED MARK UP LANGUAGE WHAT THE FUCK
Anyone else shudder when reading this? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 6:13

bbcode

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 7:21

>>34

I don't see why that's a bad thing. Until browsers all render everything (including errors) the same way, there's no reason to forgive people for doing stupid things.

Besides, give  me one reason why you would have illegal characters or missing close tags. (User input? Sanitize it, you dumbfuck PHPer.)

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 10:46

>>37
Then you'll agree to sentence every person offending law in any way (such as crossing the street outside designated areas) to death, right?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 10:51

>>38
Why?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 11:17

>>38
person crossing the street outside designated areas does not offer his services to thousands.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 11:45

ITT people defending bad code with law analogies.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 11:52

>>38

I do.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 12:17

>>41
ITT I attempt to troll with fallacies and flawed logic that looks right

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 12:20

>>43
Fail.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 15:39

>>37
Agree. Unless we make HTML unforgiving, people won't be driven away to an even easier language, as happened to C.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 15:44

>>45
To clarify that, people won't be driven away so we can form a band of expert webniggers.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-08 23:28

ye

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-09 5:08

>>47
Fuck you, I thought this thread was recent.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-09 5:25

XSLT + Silverlight

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-09 7:05

I'm ashamed to admit that ``expert'' webniggers made me chortle.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-09 15:58

>>50
I'm not, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-09 16:44

>>50
What's a chortle? Is that some sort of cock ring or butt plug?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-09 19:53

>>51
fucking niggers man do you even see it
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -