Re: XHTML vs HTML, etc.

[Davi Leal]

Victor Engmark wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > Victor Engmark wrote:
> > > I sent earlier advocates XHTML for mobile devices. W3C uses XHTML 1.1
> > > for their Default Delivery Context in their Mobile Web Best 
> > > Practices document.
> >
> > Theory vs practice.
>
> I had a look at http://simon.html5.org/articles/mobile-results and the rest
> of the post mentioning it

> First, let's have a look at the tests.

> The first checks that no "special" HTML information is rendered.

> The second checks whether browsers assume the content is XML.


> The third sends plain text as application/xhtml+xml.

This is the main test about XHTML. Tests whether application/xhtml+xml is 
parsed with the tag soup parser.  Note that about XHTML only 
application/xhtml+xml is the recommended media type.

You can see at the below reference, that text/html is the only that works 
well, but it is _not_ recommended.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28XHTML%29#Media_types


> The fourth sends an invalid XHTML document.

> The fifth sends a .foo file as application/x-bogus.

> Note that none of the tests sent valid XHTML to the client, so none of
> these test whether the browsers support XHTML, and none of them show
> that HTML 5 is supported.  

I am proposing to use "HTML 4.01 Strict", not HTML 5 which is not yet ready.


> My conclusion from these tests is that browsers are pretty lenient,
> and will parse XHTML as HTML if they don't support the former. How's
> that a good argument for HTML 5?

I am not proposing to use HTML 5 but "HTML 4.01 Strict", which is very well 
supported on all browsers and devices!.


> For more useful information, take a look at the Wikipedia browser 
> comparison page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Web_technology_support

What we can see at that page is that XHTML is not the way to follow if you 
want _universal support_, at least yet.

> By the way, the W3C did in fact not start the HTML 5 effort. That's done by
> WHATWG <http://www.whatwg.org/>. As of now, (X)HTML 5 are working drafts,
> while XHTML 1.0 has been a W3C recommendation since 2000.

I know  W3C did not start it, but it seems they are all working now:

  "W3C is pleased to announce the new HTML Working Group, chartered
   to create the next HTML standard with the active participation
   of browser vendors, ..."

     Ref.: http://www.w3.org/html/


Additional very interesting reference:
  http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3672011

Note: All that is _current_ information.


> > Using XHTML will lead to a number of desktop and mobile browsers being
> > unable to access the content.
> >
> > Unless you have some specific need which only XHTML 1.1 can fulfill,
> > "HTML 4.01 Strict" is the best bet today for universal support.
>
> I've used XHTML 1.1 for years, and by using HTTP Accept header sniffing
> it's easy to support all the browsers I've tried so far - IE6, Firefox
> 0.6+, and Opera 8+.

... all browsers *you have tried*.  That is not universal support.

> The main reason I'm pushing for XHTML is simply that I think it'll make it
> easier for us in the long run to deal with other XML technologies, such as
> feeds, SVG, XForms, and others, and make it easier to maintain our
> JavaScript and CSS.

The project must not lose the universal support just for  "make it easier for 
us in the long run to deal with XML technologies".

Anyway:
  * HTML can <link> to feeds just like XHTML.
  * JavaScript and CSS will work too.

We could move to XHTML later, if needed, due to HTML 4.01 Strict is very 
similar.




> I just think it's a good idea that every page contains some instructions
> for how to contact the GNU Herds team, not anyone else. 

Maybe it is a good idea. What address use for the contact information, the 
association@ or the gnuherds-app-dev@ one?

I have added a postponed task, to do not forget it.
  Task: https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?6784

Davi