Comments on: The Invisible Design Decision http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/ thoughts on | comments about | examples of } web design trends. Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:56:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: FrankieB http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8873 FrankieB Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:27:46 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8873 HTML is doing to die!!! Oh no!!!...wait....doing to die? HTML is doing to die!!! Oh no!!!…wait….doing to die?

]]> By: Tor Bollingmo http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8874 Tor Bollingmo Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:27:50 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8874 Yes, finaly. I don't see why so many people use XHTML, and sends it of as text/html. Why? Yes, finaly. I don’t see why so many people use XHTML, and sends it of as text/html. Why?

]]> By: Andrew Faulkner http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8878 Andrew Faulkner Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:38:10 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8878 I have to admit I'm guilty of switching to XHTML without really fully knowing its uses and capabilities. Great intro, Abhijit. I have to admit I’m guilty of switching to XHTML without really fully knowing its uses and capabilities. Great intro, Abhijit.

]]> By: Abhijit Nadgouda http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8889 Abhijit Nadgouda Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:10:17 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8889 FrankieB, quite an hilarious comment to point out an equally hilarious typo. Thanks, it has been corrected. I too have treaded the wrong path, but IMHO this information was not as publicized as the rest about XHTML. The reason might have been that the information was too technical for a lot of guys to read and digest it. That is why I feel that recommended practices, like a short reference, should be available for this. FrankieB, quite an hilarious comment to point out an equally hilarious typo. Thanks, it has been corrected.

I too have treaded the wrong path, but IMHO this information was not as publicized as the rest about XHTML. The reason might have been that the information was too technical for a lot of guys to read and digest it. That is why I feel that recommended practices, like a short reference, should be available for this.

]]> By: iface thoughts » Blog Archive » HTML Or XHTML? At fadtastic http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8890 iface thoughts » Blog Archive » HTML Or XHTML? At fadtastic Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:17:32 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8890 [...] My digging into the HTML v/s XHTML debate led me to write my latest article on fadtastic - The Invisible Design Decision. I had read a lot on this, but took some time to digest it. However in the light of new development from W3C, you might give a second thought to your decision to go with HTML or XHTML. What do you think? [...] […] My digging into the HTML v/s XHTML debate led me to write my latest article on fadtastic - The Invisible Design Decision. I had read a lot on this, but took some time to digest it. However in the light of new development from W3C, you might give a second thought to your decision to go with HTML or XHTML. What do you think? […]

]]> By: XHTML/CSS - You do the design, we do the code. http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8949 XHTML/CSS - You do the design, we do the code. Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:59:41 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-8949 [...] The Invisible Design Decisions - Another great artcile on XHTML. [...] […] The Invisible Design Decisions - Another great artcile on XHTML. […]

]]> By: Keith http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9015 Keith Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:54:08 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9015 Designing for XHTML is very usefull server side... I deal with ASP/.NET technologies and use lots of XML based technology - stuff like SQL Server's XML extensions / RSS / XML-RPC / XSLT / SOAP etc. Keeping the output format of my scripts as XML allows me to serve the data directly to the client as XHTML, use it as a SOAP response or use it elsewhere without the need to convert to other formats. Infact, the final XHTML output could be loaded directly into a XML parser and used as a datasource. It would be great if the MIME type of 'application/xhtml+xml' was supported in IE but, IMHO serving a well formed XML document as text/html is still much more usefull than HTML since it's still an XML document and I can treat it as such. Designing for XHTML is very usefull server side…

I deal with ASP/.NET technologies and use lots of XML based technology - stuff like SQL Server’s XML extensions / RSS / XML-RPC / XSLT / SOAP etc.

Keeping the output format of my scripts as XML allows me to serve the data directly to the client as XHTML, use it as a SOAP response or use it elsewhere without the need to convert to other formats. Infact, the final XHTML output could be loaded directly into a XML parser and used as a datasource.

It would be great if the MIME type of ‘application/xhtml+xml’ was supported in IE but, IMHO serving a well formed XML document as text/html is still much more usefull than HTML since it’s still an XML document and I can treat it as such.

]]> By: Abhijit Nadgouda http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9019 Abhijit Nadgouda Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:26:12 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9019 I agree Keith that XHTML will help a lot if it is going to be used as XML anywhere else. In fact, that is the intent of using application/xhtml+xml which declares that the content is valid XML along with being XHTML. The problem is that text/html is fine only upto XHTML 1.0. If you upgrade to XHTML 1.1 then text/html has to be completely avoided since XHTML 1.1 is not HTML compatible. As a discussion, would HTML with closed tags work as well formed XML? I am not sure what mechanism you are using to use the XHTML as XML elsewhere since you might have to change the namespaces to use it for stuff like SOAP response. I agree Keith that XHTML will help a lot if it is going to be used as XML anywhere else. In fact, that is the intent of using application/xhtml+xml which declares that the content is valid XML along with being XHTML. The problem is that text/html is fine only upto XHTML 1.0. If you upgrade to XHTML 1.1 then text/html has to be completely avoided since XHTML 1.1 is not HTML compatible.

As a discussion, would HTML with closed tags work as well formed XML? I am not sure what mechanism you are using to use the XHTML as XML elsewhere since you might have to change the namespaces to use it for stuff like SOAP response.

]]> By: Keith http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9028 Keith Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:05:28 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9028 Abhijit, That would make an interesting discussion.. In it's most simple form XML is a text document so as long it compiles with the W3C XML Spec. you can use it as an XML document. Technically, you could serve a document as 'text/plain' as long as it meets the XML spec. you can load it into an XML parser as a string and use it. BUT... doing this means the user-agent must work out that your using XML itself - this is where setting the correct Content-Type header comes in. Just closing tags isn't enough to make HTML XHTML... XHTML 1.x is a subset of XML and is therefore natively XML compliant. As you point out in your HTML is a subset of SGML which can be XML compliant but, as the HTML Spec. is so flexible its usually not just as simple as closing your tags - things like DTD's, Entities, CDATA Sections etc. must also be considered. Abhijit, That would make an interesting discussion..

In it’s most simple form XML is a text document so as long it compiles with the W3C XML Spec. you can use it as an XML document.

Technically, you could serve a document as ‘text/plain’ as long as it meets the XML spec. you can load it into an XML parser as a string and use it. BUT… doing this means the user-agent must work out that your using XML itself - this is where setting the correct Content-Type header comes in.

Just closing tags isn’t enough to make HTML XHTML…

XHTML 1.x is a subset of XML and is therefore natively XML compliant. As you point out in your HTML is a subset of SGML which can be XML compliant but, as the HTML Spec. is so flexible its usually not just as simple as closing your tags - things like DTD’s, Entities, CDATA Sections etc. must also be considered.

]]> By: Abhijit Nadgouda http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9049 Abhijit Nadgouda Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:01:08 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9049 Yes, its true that XHTML is not just HTML with closed tags, in fact I have found that it is one of the popular myths. However, is it possible to close tags in HTML to form well-formed XML, not XHTML? So we can serve the document as HTML to the browser, and can use it as XML elsewhere. Yes, its true that XHTML is not just HTML with closed tags, in fact I have found that it is one of the popular myths. However, is it possible to close tags in HTML to form well-formed XML, not XHTML? So we can serve the document as HTML to the browser, and can use it as XML elsewhere.

]]> By: Keith http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9051 Keith Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:21:58 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9051 Yes and No. If we're planning to serve a document as HTML 4 with an HTML 4 DTD then we can't just close tags to make a valid XML document. Self closing tags are not part of the HTML 4 spec but they are required in XML. Using self closing tags in HTML would probably cause validation issues (I've not checked that tho') This is why I serve XHTML 1.0 - I can use XML techologies to create / manipulate a document and still serve it as 'text/html' with an XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD. A few years ago I couldn't have justified the switch to XHTML but in a world of Content Syndication and API's having the ability to load well-formed web based content (be it RSS, SOAP messages or an entire web page) directly into an XML parser is a powerful tool. Yes and No. If we’re planning to serve a document as HTML 4 with an HTML 4 DTD then we can’t just close tags to make a valid XML document. Self closing tags are not part of the HTML 4 spec but they are required in XML. Using self closing tags in HTML would probably cause validation issues (I’ve not checked that tho’)

This is why I serve XHTML 1.0 - I can use XML techologies to create / manipulate a document and still serve it as ‘text/html’ with an XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD.

A few years ago I couldn’t have justified the switch to XHTML but in a world of Content Syndication and API’s having the ability to load well-formed web based content (be it RSS, SOAP messages or an entire web page) directly into an XML parser is a powerful tool.

]]> By: Keith http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9061 Keith Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:50:08 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9061 I guess i could summarize it like this... HTML has a very specific job. Its exists to instruct user-agents on semantics. These can the be used for indexing (A search engine) or used for display purposes (a browser) XML is essentially a data description langauge, its very formal which makes it very portable. It's used extensivly in communication over the web. XHTML is both! I think the real issue with choosing between HTML and XHTML lies with understanding how the XML part can be of advantage to you - I'd hazard a guess that most web developers don't fully appreciate or even need the extras XML offers which basically renders XHTML a different way of writing HTML. Maybe that explains why there is confusion over which to use... I guess i could summarize it like this…

HTML has a very specific job. Its exists to instruct user-agents on semantics. These can the be used for indexing (A search engine) or used for display purposes (a browser)

XML is essentially a data description langauge, its very formal which makes it very portable. It’s used extensivly in communication over the web.

XHTML is both!

I think the real issue with choosing between HTML and XHTML lies with understanding how the XML part can be of advantage to you - I’d hazard a guess that most web developers don’t fully appreciate or even need the extras XML offers which basically renders XHTML a different way of writing HTML. Maybe that explains why there is confusion over which to use…

]]> By: Andrew Faulkner http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9063 Andrew Faulkner Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:52:24 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9063 <blockquote>I think the real issue with choosing between HTML and XHTML lies with understanding how the XML part can be of advantage to you - I’d hazard a guess that most web developers don’t fully appreciate or even need the extras XML offers which basically renders XHTML a different way of writing HTML. Maybe that explains why there is confusion over which to use…</blockquote> I think you hit the nail on the head there.

I think the real issue with choosing between HTML and XHTML lies with understanding how the XML part can be of advantage to you - I’d hazard a guess that most web developers don’t fully appreciate or even need the extras XML offers which basically renders XHTML a different way of writing HTML. Maybe that explains why there is confusion over which to use…

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

]]> By: Abhijit Nadgouda http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9064 Abhijit Nadgouda Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:52:33 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9064 Yes, I missed that. So, trying to a build valid HTML document as a well-formed XML goes out. Yes, I missed that. So, trying to a build valid HTML document as a well-formed XML goes out.

]]> By: Abhijit Nadgouda http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9068 Abhijit Nadgouda Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:12:51 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9068 Right on the point Keith. Right on the point Keith.

]]> By: Johan http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9088 Johan Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:35:54 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9088 escaping special characters can be a problem when using XHTML 1.0, especially when using server-side statements in your hrefs, for scripts and stylesheets you have the CDATA comments to wrap around your code in XHTML pages. A useful article, see about middle of page: see <a href="http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/tutorials/css/incorporate" rel="nofollow">here</a> escaping special characters can be a problem when using XHTML 1.0, especially when using server-side statements in your hrefs, for scripts and stylesheets you have the CDATA comments to wrap around your code in XHTML pages. A useful article, see about middle of page: see here

]]> By: Jonathan Nicol http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9126 Jonathan Nicol Fri, 03 Nov 2006 21:42:20 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9126 Great article. It's really got me thinking about the importance of choosing a Strict doctype when I start building a new website. I am one of those web designers who has lazily (or naively) continued to use a Transitional doctype when I should have switched to Strict by now. Even if many web designers don't need really need all of the advantages of XHTML, the fact that XHTML makes a requirement out of many of HTML's 'best practice' recommendations has vastly improved the overall quality of my markup. And the advent of markup validation tools has helped me to detect markup problems that used to just fly under the radar. Now all I need to do is go Strict! Great article. It’s really got me thinking about the importance of choosing a Strict doctype when I start building a new website. I am one of those web designers who has lazily (or naively) continued to use a Transitional doctype when I should have switched to Strict by now.

Even if many web designers don’t need really need all of the advantages of XHTML, the fact that XHTML makes a requirement out of many of HTML’s ‘best practice’ recommendations has vastly improved the overall quality of my markup. And the advent of markup validation tools has helped me to detect markup problems that used to just fly under the radar. Now all I need to do is go Strict!

]]> By: Johan http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9131 Johan Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:36:45 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9131 @Jonathan Nichol, you can use HTML 4.01 strict or XHTML 1.0 strict. More info: <a href="http://webkit.org/blog/?p=68" rel="nofollow">Understanding HTML, XML and XHTML</a> @Jonathan Nichol, you can use HTML 4.01 strict or XHTML 1.0 strict.

More info: Understanding HTML, XML and XHTML

]]> By: Steven Tew http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9190 Steven Tew Sat, 04 Nov 2006 08:09:55 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9190 Great article Abhijit! Pitched at the right level and providing a great overview. Thanks for sharing. Great article Abhijit! Pitched at the right level and providing a great overview. Thanks for sharing.

]]> By: Abhijit Nadgouda http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9267 Abhijit Nadgouda Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:38:15 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9267 Johan, yes there will be more efforts with the decision to go with XHTML. That is the reason the decision should be justified, like in the case that Keith mentions. Thanks for the comments guys. I am learning a lot from the discussion here. Johan, yes there will be more efforts with the decision to go with XHTML. That is the reason the decision should be justified, like in the case that Keith mentions.

Thanks for the comments guys. I am learning a lot from the discussion here.

]]> By: Darryl Remnant http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9723 Darryl Remnant Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:20:09 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-9723 Hi, I also switched over to XHTML as it seemed to me to be the next thing after HTML. I found that everyone else was using it, so it seemed logical. Great Article Daz Hi, I also switched over to XHTML as it seemed to me to be the next thing after
HTML.

I found that everyone else was using it, so it seemed logical.

Great Article

Daz

]]> By: Interesting New Elements in HTML 5 on iface thoughts http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-23099 Interesting New Elements in HTML 5 on iface thoughts Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:55:26 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-23099 [...] This is very interesting, it seems HTML 5 is acknowledging the Semantic Web, which was done using the divs. I think eventually usage of div will reduce, I am not sure if it can be completely eliminated. This can strong impact choosing HTML or XHTML for your web site. I am not sure if these elements will be built into the XHTML versions too. If not would HTML 5 be considered more semantic? I wonder if these things will be addressed in the specification being worked upon. [...] […] This is very interesting, it seems HTML 5 is acknowledging the Semantic Web, which was done using the divs. I think eventually usage of div will reduce, I am not sure if it can be completely eliminated. This can strong impact choosing HTML or XHTML for your web site. I am not sure if these elements will be built into the XHTML versions too. If not would HTML 5 be considered more semantic? I wonder if these things will be addressed in the specification being worked upon. […]

]]> By: » Warum HTML5, wenn wir doch XHTML2 haben? — cne _LOG Archiv http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-25703 » Warum HTML5, wenn wir doch XHTML2 haben? — cne _LOG Archiv Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:23:13 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-25703 [...] fadtastic, The Invisible Design Decision [...] […] fadtastic, The Invisible Design Decision […]

]]> By: XHTML: Technology Against Users on iface thoughts http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-34111 XHTML: Technology Against Users on iface thoughts Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:33:17 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-34111 [...] I had tried to find out about selecting HTML or XHTML, and why there was no urgency towards serving the recommended content type. It is not very easy to find websites where this is done successfully. One popular reason is very clearly explained by Ajay. Shelley Powers points out that it is important to educate the experts about benefits of the technology behind this. [...] […] I had tried to find out about selecting HTML or XHTML, and why there was no urgency towards serving the recommended content type. It is not very easy to find websites where this is done successfully. One popular reason is very clearly explained by Ajay. Shelley Powers points out that it is important to educate the experts about benefits of the technology behind this. […]

]]> By: Web Development » Blog Archive » Why you should be using HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-39871 Web Development » Blog Archive » Why you should be using HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:17:30 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-39871 [...] The Invisible Design Decision [...] […] The Invisible Design Decision […]

]]> By: jim http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-419272 jim Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:59:39 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/11/02/the-invisible-design-decision/#comment-419272 surely nobody is using html anymore? surely nobody is using html anymore?

]]>