Jack McKalling Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 In Xhtml tutorial, it says the "name" attribute has been replaced by the "id" attribute. In HTML4 specification also I guess.In Xhtml it is not prohibited to use HTML forms instead of Xforms. But in there, in HTML forms the "name" attribute is all over the place What to do with it?What does the replacement mean for the use of it in HTML forms when using Xhtml transitional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-Man Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 You can use the name attributes for forms.It may seem weird but remember that forms are getting pretty outdated (and soon replaced with XForms), so that's why they have their own exceptions (like textarea absolutely needing cols and rows even if we could use CSS instead). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted October 2, 2005 Author Share Posted October 2, 2005 I understand, but I won't use Xforms unless I turn over from Xhtml to Xml :)Xml is too difficult for me yet because of its stylesheets that are not in CSS, but even another language.And Html Forms don't need another language. :)Xforms is just more Xml then Xhtml... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-Man Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Don't forget upcoming XHTML 2.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alzable Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Mmmm, XML is harder than HTML. I will consider learning it someday but otherwise...not for me. Shouldn't this be in the XHTML forum?alzable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-Man Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 There isn't an XHTML forum, XHTML is HTML, so it's only logic to discuss XHTML in here. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted October 3, 2005 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 Indeed :)Xml is harder than Xhtml yes, but different. Xhtml is for (with cooperating CSS) both structure, content and style.Xml on the other hand, is for structure and content only (but you might use some CSS similar language)Xml is not like Html a translation of a page, but more an arrangement of its content. That would mean different elements are not in the axact order, order is not important.For that, it is completely different to Html languages we are used to, and if I would turn over to that one I even have to learn the styling language too... That is two languages at the same time, no good :(use Xhtml instead, with easy CSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bellamy Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I understand, but I won't use Xforms unless I turn over from Xhtml to Xml :)Xml is too difficult for me yet because of its stylesheets that are not in CSS, but even another language.And Html Forms don't need another language. :)Xforms is just more Xml then Xhtml...<{POST_SNAPBACK}> "It is important to understand that XML is not a replacement for HTML. In future Web development it is most likely that XML will be used to describe the data, while HTML will be used to format and display the same data." -- words of w3schools.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dooberry Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 "It is important to understand that XML is not a replacement for HTML. In future Web development it is most likely that XML will be used to describe the data, while HTML will be used to format and display the same data." -- words of w3schools.com<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm gonnna sound a bit ignorant here but I'm gonna say it anyway.XML is no more difficult than HTML, you just don't get away with mistakes.XSL is fantastic for laying out documents and can carry all the functionality of HTML and more (and you have to do it correctly which is a bonus). As a web novice I'm sure I'll find pitfalls sooner or later, but so far it seems pretty cool.I think every web programmer should try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I'd be writing xml if it wasn't for the fact that Opera doesn't support XSLT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skemcin Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I've done both - xml is easy xsl is hard.Given the difficulty I had picking up XSL, I went back to HTML and Cold Fusion to parse my XML documents.I couldn't imagine writing this in XSL:http://www.iribbit.net/news.cfmI know . . . I'm procrastinating learning XSL.I know . . . I'm shooting myself in the foot right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paim Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 XML seems complicated to me, but then again, so did HTML and PHP before I'd started them. Just offtopic, where can I get all this info about the upcoming XHTML and CSS etc, and what they can do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/XHTML 2.0http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-hyperAttri...tributes_targetWarning: Long read ahead... :)Looks like they're putting the target attribute back into xhtml. Finally. Never understood why they took that out of xhtml 1.0 strict and 1.1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 Looks like they're putting the target attribute back into xhtml. Finally. Never understood why they took that out of xhtml 1.0 strict and 1.1...<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point Never understood what was their replacement either *loves target* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Good point Never understood what was their replacement either *loves target*<{POST_SNAPBACK}> target= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 LOL :)I never stopped using target attribute though.. :)I couldn't get the replacement so wasn't able to either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-Man Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 I think target is allowed with the Frameset DTD. And we all know frames are bad...Then, you could also use it to open up new windows, but we also know how bad that is. And Javascript is just the way to go on the matter anyway since HTML's job is not to control browser events.So there isn't much need for target right now. We'll be getting XFrames eventually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 I think target is allowed with the Frameset DTD. And we all know frames are bad...It's also allowed in Transitional. And frames are baaaad... No, seriously, they stink.Then, you could also use it to open up new windows, but we also know how bad that is. And Javascript is just the way to go on the matter anyway since HTML's job is not to control browser events.Why is opening up a new window with target="" bad? Like target="_blank"?So there isn't much need for target right now. We'll be getting XFrames eventually...<{POST_SNAPBACK}> XFrames, yeah. But what about <base target="" />? Can't that be used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) Base is depreciated I thought :)Edit: sorry, my fault, <basefont /> is.. Edited November 23, 2005 by Dan The Prof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_base.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-Man Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Why is opening up a new window with target="" bad? Like target="_blank"?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because it's completely inaccessible to blind people or other sorts of handicap, and it should be the user's choice if he wants a new window opened or not. Also like I said, it's JavaScript's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspnetguy Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 name or id? Doesn't matter.both are accessible from javascript for validation, just done 2 different ways, instead of document.form.name.value it is document.getElementById("id").value.Besides I can't see XML replacing XHTML for layout of a webpage. It is better suited for things like RSS Feeds and Web Control component attributes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now