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

XHTML vs HTML

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 0:52

Your preference and why?

Name: m7 2010-07-10 0:58

XHTML; it is offers more concise markup and is much easier to read (in my opinion).

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 1:06

I'd use XHTML in my websites only if they didn't break the entire page because of any minimal error, especially since the content is user posted.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 1:16

BBCODE

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 1:16

BBCODE

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 1:33

I don't think XHTML is more concise than HTML. On the contrary; compare <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> ... <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8" /> with <!DOCTYPE html> ... <meta charset="UTF-8">.

But I will admit, this is more about HTML5 than HTML proper. Incidentally, the only reason I wouldn't use XHTML right now for projects that don't require old browser support is because HTML5 has tags that offer much more concise structural markup (section, article, nav, etc.). But I do like the feeling of security that comes with XHTML, even if in practice it may end up breaking things more than keeping them together (as in >>3's case).

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 3:27

>>3
Enjoy your XSS

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 4:57

>>7
I'm escaping the HTML, thanks.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 5:31

I prefer XHTML to HTML because it's the closest you can get to -pedantic. HTML encourages sloppiness, as >>3 demonstrates.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 8:00

>>1
XHTML is just a bandwagon people hop on.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 9:42

>>10
But they don't, or we wouldn't even have HTML5.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 10:58

>>8
Then why could your documents ever become badly formatted?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 13:05

>>12
Because he's incompetent.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 17:17

>>13
Sure is asshole around here.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 17:23

>>14
Explain yourself, then, >>3.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 17:40

>>14
The inept always complain about how mean people are to point out their shortcomings, but never seem to take that as a hint to improve.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 17:47

is HTML web standards compliant. I thought only XHTML was

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 18:04

>>17
Only XHTML complies to the XHTML standard.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 18:07

>>16
You're right. Sorry.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 18:30

>>19
YOU'RE MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 19:51

How are you supposed to parse HTML? How many languages have a good library for HTML parsing? XML might not be nice, but at least it's usable.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 23:57

>>6
HTML:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
XHTML:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

>>21
http://docs.factorcode.org/content/vocab-html.parser.html
http://search.cpan.org/~petek/HTML-Tree-3.23/lib/HTML/Tree.pm
http://docs.python.org/library/htmlparser.html

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 0:10

>>21

On Windows you should use MSHTML to parse your shit. Most pages you encounter will parse in IE, so why not just fucking use it. You can use it to just parse HTML for you lol seucirty risk fags.

Or you could use webkit as a library if you need to be on Jewnix.

And XHTML for HTML5 is now called something faggy like XML Serialization of HTML5, so it is not dead.

Anyone who takes at least some pride in good markup will use the XML variant of HTML (which is shit, fucking Europeans inventing that shit).

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 0:19

>>1
I prefer SexpCode, of course

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 1:30

XHTML5 for hand-coded pages, HTML5 for script-generated pages.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 2:49

>>On Windows

Now why would you do that to a perfectly good server?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 3:05

>>On Windows
Jeet christ

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 8:23

HTML5 works, but I really wish the browsers would standarize a bunch of the neat stuff Mozilla have added to JS, bump the version, and say that anything with the new version is prohibited from using document.write() and all that shit. And/or provide some kind of other "I am not a retard" token.

Javascript loading and uncacheable content are the banes of the fast Web.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 10:39

Fuck HTML 5.
This is just another floor in the tower of junk that has become modern computing.
By the time we're all grandpas or virgins with white hair, basic desktop application will still make you wait dozens of seconds all the time, because we'll keep building as many layers of abstraction as our hardware will be able to take.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 10:55

>>29
Your new `floor' is parallel to a lot of the other crap. Nowadays a web browser is just another VM with a crappy but easy to learn GUI API.
Makes you think, if Java hadn't been slow, bloated shit we probably wouldn't have had any of this.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 12:23

>>30
Makes you think, if Java hadn't been slow, bloated shit we probably wouldn't have had any of this.
I think you mean we would have had more of it:
Have I ever designed a standard library? I'd like to lie and say "no", but the answer is "yes": I designed JavaScript's standard library (Clause 15 of ECMA-262, Edition 1, plus or minus) along with the "DOM Level 0" (onload and onclick and document, window, forms, etc. -- a great deal of this is only now standardized by HTML5).
I did this in about 30 days in May and June 1995 (10 days in May for the core language), and spent the rest of the year debugging and repenting. I was under orders to make JS look like Java, so some of the standard library is cloned from the JDK1.0

Thank your pitiful god that only happened the once.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 15:17

>>28
Well, you can't use document.write with XHTML, but only Firefox enforces that, as far as I know.

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#docwrite

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 15:58

>>32
doesn't firefox let you do it as long as you didn't try to document.write anything that would break the well-formedness of the document? you already have an XML parser that's available to javascript, so why not just implement document.write using that?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 16:17

>>32
Yes, but this is not the case in HTML5, as it should have been. It may be the main advantage left to XHTML at this point.
It is probably so because the Web 2.0 twits who will use HTML5 are the same intellectually challenged people who couldn't write a fast loading page to save their Rails-infested lives.
Newer Posts
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 -