Jump to menu

Vote down?

  1. trovster

    ARGH. I screamed when I read the first paragraph of this article.

    But there are two flavours of XHTML 1.0, defined by the Transitional and Strict DOCTYPEs. And HTML 4.01 also comes in those flavours.

    WRONG. Plain and simple. XHTML1.0 has 3 DTD, just like HTML. Strict, Transitional and Frameset

    Every XHTML doctype (without the xml prolog declaration makes browsers display in standards mode. However, only Strict HTML does the same. But this reason isn’t a reason to use XHTML.

    It is also a fact you can write as semantically-incorrect XHTML as you could HTML. This is because they’re like for like on every element. And the only difference in attributes seems to be “name” mentioned below. However, you can write perfectly semantic HTML just as easily as XHTML.

    I see no reason to choose the X over old-vanilla HTML. I was lured into the “world of the X”, but I’ve since understood the errors of my way and have choosen the most appropriate markup language of our day.

    I’m not to say XHTML doesn’t have its benefits, especially for newcomers, as it gives the false illusion that it’s a lot stricter, and this can benefit people interested in new ways of thinking and using standards-based markup.