dan39 said: If you just try to write well-formed HTML, you don't exactly have a validator that's going to tell you when you left quotes off of an attribute.
Yes there is. I validate HTML 4.0 strict all the time. And it complains about errors in my markup just as much as when I use XHTML. Well perhaps a bit less because HTML validators don't expect the CDATA stuff around CSS and Javascript. Try it out: http://validator.w3.org/
I know XHTML, I just don't know that attribute. I'm not opposed to XHTML, I just think all the fuss about it is unwarranted. I've seen the fieldset code, but I thought there would be some sort of forum feature. By the way, I don't think your quote thingy is cool. I'm talking about something I've seen elsewhere in the forum. Yours is just a dumb blockquote, which I believe originated in HTML...
Jeremy2 said, politely..."Yours is just a dumb blockquote "
Calm down. I was joking.
BTW, you're wrong about HTML Strict validating for well-formedness. It definitely doesn't.
The following is not well-formed but still validates in HTML 4.01 Strict:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Untitled</TITLE>
</head>
<body>
<div CLASS=run>
<P CLASS="stop">I didn't use quotes on my first class attribute, and I didn't use lowercase on this
opening paragraph tag but HTML strict doesn't care. So much for well-formedness.
</div>
<p>Hey look! I forgot to close my body tag. No problem, it's HTML. Anything goes!
</html>
Holy crap, you are right. I thought for sure that I had all sorts of errors pop up when I had forgotten quotes or what not. Perhaps it was XHTML I was validating before. Btw, I was mostly joking myself as well, though I was annoyed a bit. I grew up with a family that likes to heckle. The rounded corner stuff is rather nice. I got sick of trying to find a rounded corners solution that was not a pain in the butt, and this one does not seem to take up globs of code. I bet it doesn't validate, though .
Meh. You want to see proper minimal HTML? (Yes, the markup below is valid HTML 4.01 Strict) <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<title>I heart HTML</title>
<p>Hooray for HTML! But you're right. If you want to embed SVG images, or microformats in your website, you're probably better off using XHTML.
I warned this will turn out to be endless, fruitless discussion… XHTML is HTML made valid XML. Period. XML compatibility is a key factor, in many aspects.
BTW, the round corners are done with vendor specific CSS extensions. When the border-module spec is finalized and supported by future releases of the browsers, you'll just be able to use valid "border-radius" without the vendor specific CSS extensions. The vendor-specific CSS extensions are used to experiment in each browsing environment. It's an easy solution, but keep in mind that IE probably won't be recognizing border-radius for a few years.
"Perhaps it <span style="font-style: italic;">was</span> XHTML I was validating before."
Of course, if you're talking semantic markup you should have used <em></em> ;)
/me steps away from the fire...
Well thanks everyone for answering me. It's a pity there wasn't a clear consensus, but I can just look positively and conclude that either option is OK, provided I do it "right".
Just for the record, I took a typical page I had written and made up three pages with the same code but three different DTDs, all strict (HTML 4, XHTML 1.0 & XHTML 1.1), and submitted them for validation. (Remember I'm a total mug, someone who gets by using a very little knowledge and a lot of trial and error, and I had not really understood previously the importance of DTDs. Nvu, which I use, says it produces XHTML 1.0, so I wanted to see what it actually produced, though the "problems" were more likely to be me than it.)
Anyway, both versions of XHTML produced 60+ validation errors, mainly the following four types - invalid meta tags, wrong use of <id> definitions, and no end tags for <img> and <br>, whereas the HTML had only 26 errors, and all relating to wrong use of <id> definitions - which I have yet to understand.
My conclusion? Most of the things that were invalid XHTML I understand (I think), so it looks like it will be as easy for me to use XHTML as HTML, provided I am willing to go through all my pages and make all those changes - otherwise, HTML will simply be easier for now. But I think I will go to the trouble.
Thanks again.
Wise choice. XHTML 1.0 is really all about getting people to write stricter HTML anyway I reckon. So it's good to get into the habit while you don't *need* to. I've been using XHTML 1.0 for several years now and had no more problems with it than HTML4, in fact, probably less, simply because I pay more attention to closing things and putting them in the right order in the first place.
@ercatli: I would recommend that you read the following document to get a broader understanding of the different "flavors" of HTML, XHTML and CSS. The document talks about the reasons why XHTML 1.1 isn't fully supported yet.
http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/developing_with_web_standards/full/
Once you've finished reading that document, you might be interested to read this post by Tim Berners-Lee about his thoughts on the future of HTML:
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166
and one counter-argument to his post can be found here:
http://cafe.elharo.com/xml/why-tim-berners-lee-is-wrong/
This is a debate that won't be resolved anytime soon. But, you can kind of get a sense as to why there isn't a "right" DOCTYPE for your pages. It just depends on what you are trying to achieve.
Comments
Yes there is. I validate HTML 4.0 strict all the time. And it complains about errors in my markup just as much as when I use XHTML. Well perhaps a bit less because HTML validators don't expect the CDATA stuff around CSS and Javascript. Try it out: http://validator.w3.org/
BTW, you're wrong about HTML Strict validating for well-formedness. It definitely doesn't.
The following is not well-formed but still validates in HTML 4.01 Strict:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title>Untitled</TITLE> </head> <body> <div CLASS=run> <P CLASS="stop">I didn't use quotes on my first class attribute, and I didn't use lowercase on this opening paragraph tag but HTML strict doesn't care. So much for well-formedness. </div> <p>Hey look! I forgot to close my body tag. No problem, it's HTML. Anything goes! </html><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> <title>I heart HTML</title> <p>Hooray for HTML!But you're right. If you want to embed SVG images, or microformats in your website, you're probably better off using XHTML.
XHTML is HTML made valid XML. Period. XML compatibility is a key factor, in many aspects.
Good luck and have fun