Hi all,
I'm trying to understand the differences between the 2 & whether it's worth the headache finding someone who can do xml, or should I just leave my site to be coded in html & CSS?
Even JavaScript seems to be an issue b/c not all people have JS enabled.
Please give me your povs.
Thanks & have a great day :)
Michelle
Jump to PostWebsites aren't really coded in XML. XML is a language that is used to transmit database information between different mediums. For example, if you want to display the latest DaniWeb threads on your site, constantly updated, you would use an XML page of our latest info (i.e.
Jump to PostMy personal standpoint is that new sites I build will be xhtml, the old sites will be whatever standard was popular at that time. I won't be going round every site to update them.
Personally I rarely if ever use javascript. However the official standpoint on that is that …
Websites aren't really coded in XML. XML is a language that is used to transmit database information between different mediums. For example, if you want to display the latest DaniWeb threads on your site, constantly updated, you would use an XML page of our latest info (i.e. www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/external.php) You would then use HTML/XHTML to design a frontend for displaying this information.
XHTML is HTML ala XML. If developing a new site, I would use XHTML, like this site is. There is more support for the latest browsers and it is extremely CSS friendly. There are two versions - XHTML strict and XHTML transitional. XHTML transitional is a more leinient version that supports many HTML tags. XHTML strict is composed entirely of div tags and CSS. The idea is that the layout and design of a site should be kept entirely separate from a site's content. Therefore, all that should appear on the page are div tags, span tags, and text. CSS defines the entire layout of everything.
My personal standpoint is that new sites I build will be xhtml, the old sites will be whatever standard was popular at that time. I won't be going round every site to update them.
Personally I rarely if ever use javascript. However the official standpoint on that is that if the function of the script is critical to the operation of the page, then it should be done server side.
Pages created using XHTML are treated as HTML if they have an .htm or .html extension and as XML if they have a .xml extension so, provided your code is valid, using XHTML gives you both at once.
Sorry for the delay, I've been swamped.
So is it safe to assume that someone who doesn't know xhtml isn't up to speed when it comes to WD, or not necessarily?
Thanks
Michelle
My personal standpoint is that new sites I build will be xhtml, the old sites will be whatever standard was popular at that time. I won't be going round every site to update them.
Personally I rarely if ever use javascript. However the official standpoint on that is that if the function of the script is critical to the operation of the page, then it should be done server side.
The W3C web site lists XHTML 1.1 as the latest HTML standard. I guess it depends on how up to date you want to be. I am not convinced that earlier browsers still used by a lot of people will necessarily display pages written in XHTML 1.1 properly so I am currently using XHTML 1.0 which is almost identical to the previous version (HTML 4.0) except for the minimal changes necessary to make it XML compliant.
Probably, yes. A developer who's 'on the ball' should at least be able to write xhtml, even if they prefer to stick to HTML 4.01 strict.
I was under the impression xhtml 1.1 was simply xhtml 1.0 strict with a few minor tweaks.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.
