Why HTML?

[Guest FirefoxRocks]

I have noticed that there is separate tutorials for HTML and XHTML.If we should be using XHTML and there is little to learn in the XHTML tutorial, why should there be an HTML tutorial?

What Is XHTML? * XHTML stands for EXtensible HyperText Markup Language * XHTML is aimed to replace HTML * XHTML is almost identical to HTML 4.01 * XHTML is a stricter and cleaner version of HTML * XHTML is HTML defined as an XML application * XHTML is a W3C Recommendation

Aimed for replacement? Then maybe we should teach XHTML right from the start because it is almost identical to HTML 4.01 and it is aimed to replace HTML.I don't see why there should be different sections and different quizzes.If you DO want to teach HTML, at least put a link to it from the XHTML tutorial into an "older" HTML tutorial, not on the main sidebar. And why are you including depreciated tags in the reference? What about the page teaching about <font>?Now I never have taken an exam before on HTML/XHTML/CSS, but it would be EXTREMELY confusing if it asked:HTMLWhat is the correct way for a line break?: <br>XHTMLWhat is the correct way for a line break?: <br />That would be confusing and strange to lots of people.Think about it,<![[ This is this user's 4th post. Don't remove this ]]-->

[Anders Moen]

XHTML is the newer version of HTML.XHTML will probably replace HTML later some time, isn't that true? I think I read at W3.org

[boen_robot]

I'll think about it... hmm...There are very few differences, and most of today's sites (including W3Schools) are still rendered as HTML, even though their syntax is XHTML. It's a MIME type thing... It's a little difficult to explain.Anyhow, in the real world, you'll have to sometimes encounter HTML pages, and knowing how to deal with them is sure to be useful. Knowing the few differences and advantages XHTML has to offer is an important thing for long term development.

[Guest FirefoxRocks]

I know about the MIME type.XHTML 1.0 and HTML 2, HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are rendered as text/htmlXHTML 1.1 and the upcoming XHTML 2 MUST be rendered as application/xhtml+xmlBut the markup is XHTML, and that is what counts. The tutorials should be teaching XHTML 1.0, therefore the text/html MIME type is suitable.And also, you can explain the history of HTML in the XHTML tutorial, if you decide to use my idea.

[LifeInBinary]

This topic should probably be in suggestions - but the HTML/XHTML people should have some good input.You make some very good points FireFoxRocks, I have asked myself the same questions. I believe it is a bit of history. Even though XHTML is supposed to be the new standard, unfortunately HTML is still very widely in use. I think the problem is that people started learning HTML first and never realized that the standards were changing to XHTML. If they did realize that the standards changed, then they probably just didn't want to have to go through and recode their websites - thinking, "Well, it's perfectly functionally so I don't see why I need to waste my time with that." - and most website owners probably hired somebody else to code their website - and it's way more likely that people like us know that HTML should be XHTML than for website owners who never touch code. I also agree with boen_robot about the fact that if you need to edit an already HTML-compliant website - then you need to know the correct syntax for HTML, and not for XHTML - which is why I think that it should still be on w3schools.Here is another opinion of mine on the matter. If XHTML is truly supposed to replace HTML - by the mandate of the w3consortium - then I think they should take up a legal pursuit to have all browsers stop supporting HTML tags, and force everyone to make the switch to XHTML. That way, people already using HTML would have to edit their code to validate with XHTML or not have a website - and all new people learning to make websites would have to learn XHTML instead of HTML. That's my solution anyway.Great conversation starter though - thanks for that.LifeInBinary.

[LifeInBinary]

The tutorials should be teaching XHTML 1.0

They do. The XHTML one anyway. I do think that w3schools should put something like this in the begining of the HTML tutorials though:HTML is now outdated so to speak. W3Consortium has officially stated that XHTML is to replace HTML. If you are interested in building web sites for the first time, we suggest that you instead view our XHTML tutorial - as to maintain up to date with the current standards.Not trying to nit-pick, it's just that I have a slightly different view than you do - and I am almost certain that everyone you speak to about this will be 50/50 between our two standpoints. So this would be an acceptable compromise, I would assume.LifeInBinary.

[boen_robot]

I knew I forgot a good point there. Life In Binary got it: People who first hear of web design/development hear about HTML, and only then they understand that it's old and that XHTML is the new deal. So sites like W3Schools that want to attract newbies HAVE to have HTML in their inventory.I don't agree with the legal pursuit though. It's going to have a bad end. Remember the Eolas case? Don't you hate Eolas for making Microsoft (and consequently Opera) to make Objects activateable by a click? Besides, HTML is "royaltee free" and more importantly - just OLD. How can you sue someone for doing nothing, when you're not paying anything and that someone is not responsible to you in any direct way?

[LifeInBinary]

I don't agree with the legal pursuit though. It's going to have a bad end. Remember the Eolas case? Don't you hate Eolas for making Microsoft (and consequently Opera) to make Objects activateable by a click?

This is a very good point - I didn't think about the possibility of a negative outcome. I just know that lazy and cheap people won't stop being lazy and cheap - and so HTML will continue to exist 100 years from now. I just need to realize that you can't force people to do what they should. I think the best thing we could do is to spread the word of XHTML and try to get newbies to realize that it is XHTML they are interested in and not HTML. I think a good start with that would be for w3schools to add something like I said to the begining or their HTML tutorial.

People who first hear of web design/development hear about HTML, and only then they understand that it's old and that XHTML is the new deal. So sites like W3Schools that want to attract newbies HAVE to have HTML in their inventory.

I also forgot about that. People interested in web design think they are looking for HTML. That's another reason that w3schools should keep the tutorial, but inform users of XHTML before they learn the wrong stuff.LifeInBinary.

[boen_robot]

Actually, the HTML tutorial DOES indeed inform people for XHTML. It does it in the end however. Read HTML 4.0 Why.

[Guest FirefoxRocks]

If people are going to use HTML, at least use it properly.I mean like closing off <p> tags and lowercase attributes and tags. I think that browsers need to drop the support for <font> and the attribute bgcolor and other depreciated stuff.If you need to edit an HTML-complaint page, why not just convert it to XHTML? That would be extremely helpful because there wouldn't be too much to change, as XHTML is easy to convert to using these steps:

1. The language code for the element should be specified with xml:lang attribute instead of lang.2. Include the XML namespace (xmlns=URI). XHTML requires and facilities namespaces. Although the page doesn't break without the XML namespace, it should be included.3. Change the DTD declaration from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0..4. Include the XML declaration (Typically this is: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?>).5. Change the document’s mime type to application/xhtml+xml. This may come from a meta element, from the HTTP header of the server or possibly from a filename extension (for example, change .html to xhtml). This step is optional, but recommended. Compatibility problems may occur.6. Close empty elements properly (<br> to <br />)

Therefore, it wouldn't be much of a problem for most people. However, pages generated using a WYSIWYG editor may encounter extreme problems and may even have hundreds of errors in HTML, which would be a lot harder to convert to XHTML.Archive HTML, teach XHTML instead!EDIT: Actually, I forgot to mention about attribute minimization and depreciated tags. They need to be corrected too. And mandatory DOCTYPES and alt attribute for images need to be added.

[LifeInBinary]

Actually, the HTML tutorial DOES indeed inform people for XHTML. It does it in the end however. Read HTML 4.0 Why.

Ah, I forgot about that. It's been a while since I looked at the HTML tutorial - anything but the references anyway. I do think they should state that in the front though, instead of letting newcomers learn an old markup then telling them it's wrong and that they should learn something else. It would even be easier on them if they knew it was depricated beforehand so that way they aren't wasting their time.LifeInBinary.

[LifeInBinary]

If people are going to use HTML, at least use it properly...

At least they tell them it's depricated. I mean, since it still works I guess it's up for grabs. I'll be honest, I still use <font> just because it's a lot easier than styles for me.LifeInBinary.

[boen_robot]

However, pages generated using a WYSIWYG editor may encounter extreme problems and may even have hundreds of errors in HTML, which would be a lot harder to convert to XHTML.

That's H#ll's gate.... WYSIWYG editors that produce tons of invalid HTML 4 code. And it's exactly THE reason to keep the HTML tutorial. Such pages are practically unconvertable to XHTML Transitional (and strict? forget it) and that's where the ol' HTML skills could kick in. Of course, you can always deny a client's request, but that would be just unprofessional.W3Schools already teaches good practices like closing p elements, writing tags in lower case and (as you can see in the why page) using CSS for styling.As for the steps you're showing:1. Doesn't exactly make a difference when the MIME type is the same. Infact, with text/html, the xml:lang won't be read at all by screen readers and the such, which are exactly the applications this attribute is aimed at. Using both is what W3C suggests for XHTML 1.0.2. Doesn't make any difference when we're talking a pure XHTML document. Not bad anyway.3. If you'll be using Strict, this could present the need for some additional tweaks of the layouts (some of which could be major) as browsers then switch to standarts compilant mode.4. IE6 bug with it. Switches back to Quirks mode. You need to dynamically remove it when you encounter it.5. The meta element won't change a thing. And the HTTP header WILL cause problems with IE (all versions, up to and including 7).6. The only real thing to do for the syntax's sake.Oh, and before you say anything, you can't just ignore IE. Again, it's unprofessional.

[LifeInBinary]

@moderators - I think this post should be pinned. For newbies if nothing else. That way they here all of this conversation as soon as they look at the forums for HTML.LifeInBinary.

[LifeInBinary]

6. Close empty elements properly (<br> to <br />)

I think everyone learning HTML should just be in a good habit of closing all tags and using all lowercase for tags anyway. I did that as soon as I learned HTML (from this site of course) - before I even knew XHTML existed. For this reason, everything I have ever done with websites should pretty much be up to standards with XHTML. I think XHTML is just another way of saying, "Stop being lazy and follow the rules people."LifeInBinary.

[Guest FirefoxRocks]

That's H#ll's gate.... WYSIWYG editors that produce tons of invalid HTML 4 code. And it's exactly THE reason to keep the HTML tutorial. Such pages are practically unconvertable to XHTML Transitional (and strict? forget it) and that's where the ol' HTML skills could kick in. Of course, you can always deny a client's request, but that would be just unprofessional.W3Schools already teaches good practices like closing p elements, writing tags in lower case and (as you can see in the why page) using CSS for styling.As for the steps you're showing:1. Doesn't exactly make a difference when the MIME type is the same. Infact, with text/html, the xml:lang won't be read at all by screen readers and the such, which are exactly the applications this attribute is aimed at. Using both is what W3C suggests for XHTML 1.0.2. Doesn't make any difference. Not bad anyway.3. If you'll be using Strict, this could present the need for some additional tweaks of the layouts (some of which could be major) as browsers then switch to standarts compilant mode.4. IE6 bug with it. Switches back to Quirks mode. You need to dynamically remove it when you encounter it.5. The meta element won't change a thing. And the HTTP header WILL cause problems with IE (all versions, up to and including 7).6. The only real thing to do for the syntax's sake.Oh, and before you say anything, you can't just ignore IE. Again, it's unprofessional.

IE is a really buggy browser. And I don't mean to be unprofessional or anything but look at this DOM thingy that I had to put up on pages viewed with IE. It is supposed to grab attention but it didn't work.I agree lang should be included wherever you use xml:lang, and IE is definitely weird (quirky ) when using the <?xml version="1.0" ?> thing.I have never used the META element. I used Content Negotiation for a while using PHP, but it didn't work too good when I wanted to add sessions.

[boen_robot]

IE is a really buggy browser. And I don't mean to be unprofessional or anything but look at this DOM thingy that I had to put up on pages viewed with IE. It is supposed to grab attention but it didn't work.

I can tell you why it didn't worked. I mean, I wondered what exactly are you having and I had to open the page in all 3 browsers to see the differences. It took me 5 min. to discover it's the message above. This could be enough for a user to log in, do a thing and log out, which is not what you want.If you really want to make a good suggestion that people I suggest an alert box that when you say OK takes you to download Firefox and on Cancel lets you visit the site with IE. The message should be something like:

WARNING: You're using Internet Explorer, which could cause incompatabilities with the page.Please use another browser such as Mozilla Firefox or Opera. Continue with IE at your own risk!Would you like to download Firefox as an alternative browser to use?

[croatiankid]

W3Consortium has officially stated that XHTML is to replace HTML.

That is not true. Please tell me where you saw that, so someone can correct them.If you do not need to use xhtml as it's supposed to be used (xml, in combination with other xml technologies such as MathML), why do you use it over HTML? They are exactly the same, except xhtml is xml. And if you don't serve it as xml then it's not that either! Let's take a look at any static page on the internet. Using xhtml, you'd bloat the code with (in html) unnecessary tags such as HTML, BODY, HEAD. You'd have to close every tag, which doesn't have to be done in html further increasing file and code size. If your serving it as text/html, it could be harmful.

[LifeInBinary]

That is not true. Please tell me where you saw that, so someone can correct them.

I really don't have time to go digging for that - but it's possible that I could be wrong.

If your serving it as text/html, it could be harmful.

That's some very interesting text - thanks for that. I knew that XHTML was supposed to be used as an application in XML, and not text - but I thought that wasn't supposed to happen yet, so I haven't worried about it. To be quite honest, I just use the text MIME type. That's some very helpful information for when I go to make the switch to 'real' XHTML.Thanks for the info,LifeInBinary.

[Guest FirefoxRocks]

XHTML 1.0 is supposed to be backwards-compatible so that it can be served as text/html, text/xml and also application/xhtml+xml.XHTML 1.1 and the upcoming XHTML MUST be served as application/xhtml+xml. The markup may be valid, but the document isn't if it is text/html.Again, if you use PHP to serve your documents, you can use content negotiation to serve your pages application/xhtml+xml to browsers and the W3C validator and text/html to Internet Explorer because of compatibility problems.

[boen_robot]

XHTML 1.0 is supposed to be backwards-compatible so that it can be served as text/html, text/xml and also application/xhtml+xml.XHTML 1.1 and the upcoming XHTML MUST be served as application/xhtml+xml. The markup may be valid, but the document isn't if it is text/html.Again, if you use PHP to serve your documents, you can use content negotiation to serve your pages application/xhtml+xml to browsers and the W3C validator and text/html to Internet Explorer because of compatibility problems.

As if taken right out of my mouth. I couldn't agree more. Content negotiation (be it with a S3L, or the server itself) all the way! It's not that hard to keep a document compatable over the two common MIME types if you take those warnings in mind. For example, always declare your encoding, at all places.

[croatiankid]

yeah i think i'm gonna use content negotiation from now on too

[justsomeguy]

It is supposed to grab attention but it didn't work.

That's because it doesn't grab attention. It's a black bar with yellow text. What does grab attention, however, are all of the bright blues and yellows on that page. When I first opened that page my knee-jerk reaction was that it was covered in advertisements. It turns out there's not a single ad there, so I assume that means you actually chose to use each of those colors on your layout. They clash, the page is bright and hard to look at, and a black bar with yellow text does not fix that. The box on the top next to the logo looks like an advertisement box, and I'm not sure why people like to put clocks on web pages. I have never visited a web site because I wanted to find out what time it is. I have several clocks in clear view without even having to move my head, not to mention the one in the bottom-right of my computer screen, and the one on my cell phone in my pocket. So having a clock on a web page is only distracting from everything else that is there. The Firefox logo buttons are also distracting, it actually looks like an error that the logo is tiled all the way down. What does Firefox have to do with any of the content on that site? Anything? Why is the Firefox logo the first thing I noticed? The bottom line is that the site appears to be random and confusing. It looks like someone just threw it together real quick and didn't put any thought into some important design and usability choices. So don't expect someone to have their attention drawn to some text that shows up on the page. The way that site is laid out is that your eye gets drawn to the logo and the box on top first, then it follows the Firefox logos down the side of the page, and then it follows the blue bars across the bottom. The eye never gets drawn to the content area at all.And why do you have the phrase "table cell" showing up on the page?

[Guest FirefoxRocks]

[offtopic]I see what you mean. I will not remove the clock, instead I will improve it because it is suppose to be something functional and beneficial. I guess I will change the colours on the page but the box at the top will still be included because I don't want to remove that. I don't see Table Cell anywhere on the page, can you point that out please?I will definately NOT change the buttons! They are there for good and even if I do a complete site redesign I will NOT change the buttons. I may consider changing the design of the buttons if they need to be added/removed but they will still contain the Firefox logo on it![/offtopic]Back on topic, I'm releasing my own set of XHTML lessons that explains the history of HTML at some point.

[justsomeguy]

I see "Table Cell" below the clock. I just mentioned the clock because I don't really think people visit websites looking for the time. If I did, the only site I would go to would be time.gov. Your site either tells me what time it is on your server, which I don't care about, or the time on my own computer, which I already know what it is because I have a clock on the taskbar.As for the Firefox buttons, there really is no reason for them. The reason I say that is because your site doesn't have a single thing to do with Firefox, so it's confusing to say the least why the Firefox logo is all over the place. If you like Firefox that's fine, but that doesn't mean that all the buttons on your site need to have the Firefox logo on them. If it were a site dedicated to Firefox then they would fit, but it's not.