Login

KichigaiNeko · December 18, 2012 at 9:44 am

Daniel isn't THAT good I am thinking

LastPoet · December 18, 2012 at 9:45 am

ETA: Aractus, have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj...w&index=19

**Tiberius** · (This post was last modified: December 18, 2012 at 9:48 am by Tiberius.)

No, XHTML is actually more accurately defined as both XML and HTML. It uses XML structure, but HTML elements. In XML, you can have any tag as a root node; in XHTML, you have to use <html>, for instance.

You can create new elements in XHTML, but it isn't recommended, and is not really supported in browsers unless you supply your own definitions for those elements. I know a lot about XHTML; I've coded in it for years. It loads faster because browsers can use XML parsers rather than HTML parsers, which require more checks, but it's no different in terms of what you can do, and these days the speed is probably not even noticeable by the average user anyway.

Going by the first line, one would assume it is just XML, sure. However, if you look down a few lines more, you'll find that it is obviously HTML as well:

Code:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"

"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">

<head profile="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">

<script type="text/javascript" src="/noframes.js" />

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />

The DOCTYPE is "html", and more specifically "XHTML Transitional". The first tag (the root tag) is <html>. The next tag opens up a HTML header (<head>) which contains <script> tags (HTML specific) and <meta> tags (HTML specific). Indeed, the <meta> tag even lists the "Content-Type" as "text/html".

XHTML is a type of HTML as much as it is a type of XML. Effectively, it is the HTML language in an XML format.

LastPoet · (This post was last modified: December 18, 2012 at 9:50 am by LastPoet.)

(December 18, 2012 at 9:44 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Daniel isn't THAT good I am thinking

He might have some knowledge in some things, yet his self assessment of competence is way higher than his true competence.

KichigaiNeko · December 18, 2012 at 9:51 am

(December 18, 2012 at 9:48 am)LastPoet Wrote:
(December 18, 2012 at 9:44 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Daniel isn't THAT good I am thinking

He might have some knowledge in some things, yet his self assessment of competence is way higher than his true competence.

This is my current appraisal. I am NOT THAT IT savvy but I do know some stuff. Tongue

Strutting "one's-stuff" is viewed as a sign of incompetence for me

LastPoet · December 18, 2012 at 10:03 am

(December 18, 2012 at 9:51 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: This is my current appraisal. I am NOT THAT IT savvy but I do know some stuff.

Strutting "one's-stuff" is viewed as a sign of incompetence for me

I am OK accepting Tibbers expertise on web based security stuff, it is his niche after all, he studied for that, and I'm sure it wasn't cheap.

Yet, Aractus comes here trotting around IE being a good browser, its been +10 years since anyone less than stupid thinks it is. I've made a buck and a half just by turning it off for people, its a fucking cancer. It doesn't follow standards, it wants all for itself, it is utterly fallible to the stupidiest of script-kiddies.

Yet he keeps harping like a pig wearing the finest of robes. Gah.

**Aractus** · (This post was last modified: December 18, 2012 at 10:10 am by Aractus.)

The purpose of XHTML is to be a reformulation of HTML. You can't just add the XHTML doctype tag into any HTML document and expect it to behave correctly. This is what 99% of developers do, and all it does it make an HTML 4 document with the wrong doctype. But this you know. XML speed is important for more limited devices like smartphones. I'll also point out that it consumes less memory than the same HTML document does. In a way I see HTML 5 as a huge step backwards when we could have simply moved forward with XHTML if people had actually known how to use it. The compatibility issues are far less than with traditional HTML.

Why don't I show you something a little more complicated:

PHP Code:
<?
$uagent=$_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'];
$httphost='blog.aractus.com';
$base_url='http://'. $httphost. strtok($_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'],'?');
$usehtml=(stripslashes($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'])=='html');
$usexhtml=(stripslashes($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'])=='xhtml');
if(!$usehtml && !$usexhtml){
  $usexhtml=stristr($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'],'application/xhtml+xml');
}
if ($usexhtml) {
  $conttype='application/xhtml+xml';
  $closetag=' />'. chr(10);
  $dtype="<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>". chr(10). '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"'. chr(10). '"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">';
  $htmltg='<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">'. chr(10);
  $framesc='<script type="text/javascript" src="/noframes.js" />'. chr(10);
  $popup=' target="_blank"'. chr(10);
  $btarget=' target="_top"';
}
else {
  $usehtml=true;
  $conttype='text/html';
  $closetag='>'. chr(10);
  $dtype='<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"'. chr(10). '"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">';
  $htmltg='<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">'. chr(10);
  $framesc='<script type="text/javascript" src="/noframes.js"></script>'. chr(10);
  $popup=' target="_blank"'. chr(10);
  $btarget=' target="_top"';
}
header('Content-type: '. $conttype);
?>
<?=$dtype. chr(10);?>
<?=$htmltg?>
<head profile="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">
<?=$framesc?>
// .......
?>

That's what I use to determine if the document is sent as XML or not. And no part of it is plagiarized, FYI. XHTML behaves in different ways to HTML. But the compatibility is so easily managed, I don't think I can ever remember needing to use <!--[if ...]> outside of CSS, and even then only i I'm doing something silly like embedding fonts.

I can change this:

Code:
$conttype='application/xhtml+xml';

To this:

Code:
$conttype='application/xml';

And it will make no difference. Yet if I change it to:

Code:
$conttype='text/html';

All hell breaks loose (the HTML parsing will cease at the self-closing script tag).

LastPoet · December 18, 2012 at 10:17 am

Oh gawd

**Tiberius** · December 18, 2012 at 10:31 am

(December 18, 2012 at 10:05 am)Aractus Wrote: The purpose of XHTML is to be a reformulation of HTML.

This strikes me as a complete contradiction to what you said earlier:

Aractus Wrote:XHTML is XML (it isn't HTML).

Quote:You can't just add the XHTML doctype tag into any HTML document and expect it to behave correctly.

True, but then again you can't just add the XHTML doctype to any XML document and expect it to behave correctly or even validate either.

Observe: http://atheistforums.org/valid-xml.xml (Perfectly valid XML)

With an XHTML doctype: http://atheistforums.org/invalid-xhtml.html (Completely invalid XHTML)

Even your scheme validator rejects it: http://schneegans.de/sv/?url=http://athe...xhtml.html

Quote:XML speed is important for more limited devices like smartphones. I'll also point out that it consumes less memory than the same HTML document does.

Yup, but then again, smartphones are already fast enough to handle complex websites, and they are only getting faster. It would only be really noticeable on websites that are heavily complex.

Quote:In a way I see HTML 5 as a huge step backwards when we could have simply moved forward with XHTML if people had actually known how to use it. The compatibility issues are far less than with traditional HTML.[quote]
The advantage of XHTML is that you can easily turn any HTML document into an XHTML document, even if it is HTML5. As long as you abide by the specs, there is no reason why an HTML5 document can't be written in a valid XML structure.

[quote]That's what I use to determine if the document is sent as XML or not. And no part of it is plagiarized, FYI. XHTML behaves in different ways to HTML. But the compatibility is so easily managed, I don't think I can ever remember needing to use <!--[if ...]> outside of CSS, and even then only i I'm doing something silly like embedding fonts.

My point was, if I.E. cared about standards at all, there would be no need for HTML if statements. This was probably best shown with the Acid tests, more specifically, Acid3, which browsers like Chrome, Opera, and Firefox made a real effort to pass, whilst I.E. only passed it for the first time in 2011, and even then, didn't render the image perfectly.

**Aractus** · December 18, 2012 at 10:44 am

IE8, IE9 and IE10 are all pretty much fine for standards, it's only IE7 and lower that weren't.

Quote:Yup, but then again, smartphones are already fast enough to handle complex websites, and they are only getting faster. It would only be really noticeable on websites that are heavily complex.

Indeed, and now we have some really complicated webpages that load noticeably slowly and consume a lot of memory. eBay for instance is a good example. Their website would benefit HUGELY from the use of XHTML. Online stores like Amazon would also benefit (although amazon doesn't load anywhere near as slowly as eBay).

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Suggestion: Install Soma Tablet Depositories On All Threads	Violet	17	3346	May 3, 2020 at 1:14 pm Last Post: Rhizomorph13
	[Serious] Why can't I subscribe to threads?	CaenLeranzo	6	1877	February 25, 2020 at 4:53 pm Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
	Civil/ safe option for threads.	Mystic	2	1224	November 19, 2018 at 10:25 pm Last Post: SteelCurtain
	I know I'm not supposed to revive really old threads, so...	Martian Mermaid	23	5617	November 22, 2017 at 9:45 am Last Post: I_am_not_mafia
	Alternative to "click bait" rule: block threads	robvalue	40	7581	February 6, 2017 at 1:38 am Last Post: rexbeccarox
	Mafia game threads showing in "Today's Posts" lists	Ravenshire	18	7375	February 5, 2017 at 4:53 pm Last Post: Ravenshire
	Missing drafts (threads, not PMs)	Aroura	13	2454	December 2, 2016 at 9:06 pm Last Post: Aroura
	Necroing of threads by newbies	Joods	11	2115	July 4, 2016 at 7:26 pm Last Post: Whateverist
	Suggestion/question: breadcrumb nav at the bottom of threads?	KevinM1	17	3635	November 10, 2015 at 4:48 pm Last Post: KevinM1
	Starting Threads with Links	rexbeccarox	17	4196	October 6, 2015 at 5:16 pm Last Post: Edwardo Piet