<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is XHTML worthwhile?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:06:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan McCance</title>
		<link>http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/comment-page-1/#comment-1563</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan McCance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:57:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/#comment-1563</guid>
		<description>Caroline,

I have to say that &lt;I&gt;CSS Mastery&lt;/i&gt; is far from being obsolete. IE7 is not very standards compliant (yes, they support PNG now, but that has nothing to do with CSS). Their support for CSS barely reaches the CSS 1.0 standard. I still run into a considerable number of problems with IE7 on a number of issues. And to say that the techniques of the book are obsolete when many people won&#039;t upgrade to IE7 (I know quite a few people who never update their computers using Windows Update) is silly.

Backwards compatibility is still the name of the game when it comes to designing web pages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Caroline,</p>
<p>I have to say that <i>CSS Mastery</i> is far from being obsolete. IE7 is not very standards compliant (yes, they support PNG now, but that has nothing to do with CSS). Their support for CSS barely reaches the CSS 1.0 standard. I still run into a considerable number of problems with IE7 on a number of issues. And to say that the techniques of the book are obsolete when many people won&#8217;t upgrade to IE7 (I know quite a few people who never update their computers using Windows Update) is silly.</p>
<p>Backwards compatibility is still the name of the game when it comes to designing web pages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caroline Schnapp</title>
		<link>http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/comment-page-1/#comment-1549</link>
		<dc:creator>Caroline Schnapp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/#comment-1549</guid>
		<description>Dave, you live in the present (&quot;until the world&#039;s most popular&quot;). David thinks about the present AND the future.

Things change so fast. Impact of this is that computer books I buy one year are usually useless the next.

Since IE7 is out, most of the content of a recently published book such as CSS Mastery is... well, not so useful anymore (sort of an understatement). CSS Mastery provides solutions that bend backwards to accomodate the &quot;present&quot;, the non-standard-compliant browser IE. Now that IE 7 is out, and that it supports PNG... (for example), and that people are forced to update to IE 7, and that it is impossible to download and install IE 6 now, then the whole chapter on images and drop shadows in CSS Mastery is... useless in that book. Same with the hack and filter chapter. If you are able now to do what it takes to accomodate both the present and the future, then the smart move is to do just that.

I came to the web fairly late in my life. I came from the world of C++ (as an engineer). I did not have to un-learn habits... I find XHTML easy, consistent, and I just... use it. Why use HTML when you can use XHTML ? (refering to David&#039;s argument, with whom I agree on this matter).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, you live in the present (&#8220;until the world&#8217;s most popular&#8221;). David thinks about the present AND the future.</p>
<p>Things change so fast. Impact of this is that computer books I buy one year are usually useless the next.</p>
<p>Since IE7 is out, most of the content of a recently published book such as CSS Mastery is&#8230; well, not so useful anymore (sort of an understatement). CSS Mastery provides solutions that bend backwards to accomodate the &#8220;present&#8221;, the non-standard-compliant browser IE. Now that IE 7 is out, and that it supports PNG&#8230; (for example), and that people are forced to update to IE 7, and that it is impossible to download and install IE 6 now, then the whole chapter on images and drop shadows in CSS Mastery is&#8230; useless in that book. Same with the hack and filter chapter. If you are able now to do what it takes to accomodate both the present and the future, then the smart move is to do just that.</p>
<p>I came to the web fairly late in my life. I came from the world of C++ (as an engineer). I did not have to un-learn habits&#8230; I find XHTML easy, consistent, and I just&#8230; use it. Why use HTML when you can use XHTML ? (refering to David&#8217;s argument, with whom I agree on this matter).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Buchholz</title>
		<link>http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/comment-page-1/#comment-1536</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Buchholz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/#comment-1536</guid>
		<description>David, my point perhaps made poorly is that when served as text/html xhtml is served as html not xml and until the worlds most popular &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx&quot; title=&quot;Internet Explorer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;browser&lt;/a&gt; stops choking on documents served as xml I cannot see any benefit in xhtml for me or my clients.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, my point perhaps made poorly is that when served as text/html xhtml is served as html not xml and until the worlds most popular <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx" title="Internet Explorer" rel="nofollow">browser</a> stops choking on documents served as xml I cannot see any benefit in xhtml for me or my clients.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Ingram</title>
		<link>http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/comment-page-1/#comment-1529</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Ingram</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/#comment-1529</guid>
		<description>Also, XSLT will probably be an option for converting XHTML1 to XHTML2 so the conversion process for any major sites wouldn&#039;t be that big a problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, XSLT will probably be an option for converting XHTML1 to XHTML2 so the conversion process for any major sites wouldn&#8217;t be that big a problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/comment-page-1/#comment-1509</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/#comment-1509</guid>
		<description>Dave, you have missed my point. Arguments about deprecated elements are meaningless. XHTML is &lt;acronym title=&quot;Extensible Markup Language&quot;&gt;XML&lt;/acronym&gt;, whereas HTML is not. This means that a page written in HTML 4.01 will always require an HTML-compatible browser. However, as long as a page is written in &lt;strong&gt;well-formed&lt;/strong&gt; XHTML, it can be parsed by anything capable of reading XML.

Since XML doesn&#039;t define the meaning or purpose of any tag or attribute, it doesn&#039;t matter if you use deprecated attributes in an XHTML document. Of course, deprecated attributes may not be supported by future browsers, but they remain perfectly valid as XML. The key point is that the document can still be parsed correctly, whereas an HTML document cannot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, you have missed my point. Arguments about deprecated elements are meaningless. XHTML is <acronym title="Extensible Markup Language">XML</acronym>, whereas HTML is not. This means that a page written in HTML 4.01 will always require an HTML-compatible browser. However, as long as a page is written in <strong>well-formed</strong> XHTML, it can be parsed by anything capable of reading XML.</p>
<p>Since XML doesn&#8217;t define the meaning or purpose of any tag or attribute, it doesn&#8217;t matter if you use deprecated attributes in an XHTML document. Of course, deprecated attributes may not be supported by future browsers, but they remain perfectly valid as XML. The key point is that the document can still be parsed correctly, whereas an HTML document cannot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Buchholz</title>
		<link>http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/comment-page-1/#comment-1498</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Buchholz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:16:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foundationphp.com/blog/2007/01/02/is-xhtml-worthwhile/#comment-1498</guid>
		<description>Browsers serve &lt;acronym title=&quot;HyperText Markup Language&quot;&gt;html&lt;/acronym&gt; whether it be xhtml served as text/html or plain &lt;acronym title=&quot;HyperText Markup Language&quot;&gt;html&lt;/acronym&gt; 4.01 and while that is the case I will continue to use &lt;acronym title=&quot;HyperText Markup Language&quot;&gt;html&lt;/acronym&gt; 4.01, strict of course !
I don&#039;t buy the fact that just using &lt;acronym title=&quot;Extensible HyperText Markup Language&quot;&gt;xhtml&lt;/acronym&gt; makes you a more efficient coder as the transitional doctype still allows deprecated elements like target blank and border=&quot;0&quot; on images for instance &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.i-cre8.co.uk/test.html&quot; title=&quot;an example of a XHTML 1.0 Transitional page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example page&lt;/a&gt;. Being efficient is separating content and presentation and the only real way to do this in my humble opinion is to use a strict doctype of whatever flavour of &lt;acronym title=&quot;HyperText Markup Language&quot;&gt;html&lt;/acronym&gt; you decide to use.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Browsers serve <acronym title="HyperText Markup Language">html</acronym> whether it be xhtml served as text/html or plain <acronym title="HyperText Markup Language">html</acronym> 4.01 and while that is the case I will continue to use <acronym title="HyperText Markup Language">html</acronym> 4.01, strict of course !<br />
I don&#8217;t buy the fact that just using <acronym title="Extensible HyperText Markup Language">xhtml</acronym> makes you a more efficient coder as the transitional doctype still allows deprecated elements like target blank and border=&#8221;0&#8243; on images for instance <a href="http://www.i-cre8.co.uk/test.html" title="an example of a XHTML 1.0 Transitional page" rel="nofollow">example page</a>. Being efficient is separating content and presentation and the only real way to do this in my humble opinion is to use a strict doctype of whatever flavour of <acronym title="HyperText Markup Language">html</acronym> you decide to use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

