Web Analytics Made Easy -
StatCounter Converting Web Sites to XHTML+CSS - CodingForum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Converting Web Sites to XHTML+CSS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Converting Web Sites to XHTML+CSS

    Many Web designers and developers have been building Web pages for years. Just one person can create so many sites with so many pages that the thought of trying to convert all of them to anything is completely overwhelming. But if you've been building pages with an editor or by hand, you probably have pages that are not valid XHTML, and use old HTML styles like the font tag instead of Cascading Style Sheets.

    There are valid reasons for leaving your site in an older state than XHTML+CSS, but make sure that you've decided to do that. Don't just leave your site old because you can't be bothered to look at it. And, no, I won't accept that your editor does it that way as an excuse.

    Current Status
    XHTML+CSS is the latest iteration of Web design. It allows you to place your content into your documents separate from how that content should look. XHTML 1.0 is a backwards compatible version of HTML 4.0 converted into XML. This means that it is more flexible and ready to work with databases, dynamic content, and future developments in the field. XHTML is easy to learn, especially for designers who already know HTML. And Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) give you even more flexibility in designing the look of pages. CSS is also easy to learn. XHTML and CSS combined make up XHTML+CSS.
    jits
    Web 2.0 Expert

  • #2
    What was your question?
    www.b-a-k-e-r.com

    Comment


    • #3
      I think they're trying to give little tutorials on what to do when building webpages.

      They also wrote a post on images

      Comment


      • #4
        xhtml is a waste of time for what your using it for. read why using xhtml for markup sucks and is a waste of time.
        Hrvoje
        Croatiankid designs
        Downtown host

        Comment


        • #5
          Why did you copy and paste this from http://webdesign.about.com/od/xhtml/i/aa081604.htm? Maybe I'm just overly-suspicious, but it seems to me like this and the other post are just spam to spread the link in the OP's signature.

          In response to croatiankid, I don't think XHTML is a waste of time assuming that it's used correctly. Unfortunately, Internet Explorer's lack of support makes correct use more or less non-existent.

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree, Arbitrator, that is suspicious.
            Originally posted by croatiankid View Post
            xhtml is a waste of time for what your using it for. read why using xhtml for markup sucks and is a waste of time.
            I wouldn't say it's a waste of time. However, most people know less about it than they think they do.

            Semantics and validation are much more important than HTML vs. XHTML.
            Learn CSS. | SSI | PHP includes | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator | Dynamic Site Solutions
            Java != JavaScript && JScript != JavaScript
            Design/program for Firefox (and/or Opera), apply fixes for IE, not the other way around.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Kravvitz View Post
              Semantics and validation are much more important than HTML vs. XHTML.
              Are you kidding? The only reason most people use xhtml is because it's the latest trend. If you use xhtml with the correct MIME type, where it is xhtml, you are disabling the viewing of the site for 80-90% of all internet users. Then again, if you use text/html, it is not xhtml.

              about the post: it's pretty obvious (to me) that it's spam lol
              Hrvoje
              Croatiankid designs
              Downtown host

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by croatiankid View Post
                xhtml is a waste of time for what your using it for. read why using xhtml for markup sucks and is a waste of time.
                Where in Ian Hixie's article does it say it sucks and/or a waste of time? It gives reasons for not using text/html, but doesn't say it sucks or it's a waste of time.

                Originally posted by croatiankid View Post
                Are you kidding? The only reason most people use xhtml is because it's the latest trend.
                Huh? That doesn't make any sense when replying to a post saying semantics and validation are more important than whether you use HTML, or a replacement thereof…

                As for the reason why most people use XHTML, I bet you it's because it's a replacement for HTML (and therefore newer), not because it's the latest trend.

                Originally posted by croatiankid View Post
                Then again, if you use text/html, it is not xhtml.
                It is XHTML 1.0 served in accordance to Appendix C. That sounds like XHTML to me.
                Geoffrey Sneddon

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you use XHTML, you should deliver it with the application/xhtml+xml
                  MIME type. If you do not do so, you should use HTML4 instead of XHTML.
                  The alternative, using XHTML but delivering it as text/html, causes
                  numerous problems
                  that are outlined below.
                  This is my last response to this topic since this IS a bit off topic, but I'll keep reading it if there are new posts
                  Hrvoje
                  Croatiankid designs
                  Downtown host

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by croatiankid View Post
                    Are you kidding? The only reason most people use xhtml is because it's the latest trend. If you use xhtml with the correct MIME type, where it is xhtml, you are disabling the viewing of the site for 80-90% of all internet users. Then again, if you use text/html, it is not xhtml.
                    I agree with Error 404, I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. Some people use XHTML just because they think it's newer than HTML 4.01.

                    Yes, I am fully aware that IE (as of IE7) does not support application/xhtml+xml, which is the preferred mime-type for XHTML.
                    Originally posted by Error 404 View Post
                    It is XHTML 1.0 served in accordance to Appendix C. That sounds like XHTML to me.
                    XHTML served as text/html is handled like HTML with some errors. It may look like XML but to be handled like it was meant to be it needs to be served with an XML mime-type so that XML parsers will be used instead of HTML parsers.
                    Learn CSS. | SSI | PHP includes | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator | Dynamic Site Solutions
                    Java != JavaScript && JScript != JavaScript
                    Design/program for Firefox (and/or Opera), apply fixes for IE, not the other way around.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X