HTML与XHTML [英] HTML vs XHTML
问题描述
几年前，似乎XHTML是大多数网站的方向，b
标记，已成定局。现在我回到现场，我看到很多
在这里建议作者坚持使用HTML，尽管是严格的模式。
发生了什么？为什么转变？ XHTML的问题是什么？
每个人都说在大多数情况下都可以避免？我是否可以认为这个
组似乎认为HTML5将成为
网络的未来方向而不是XHTML2？
我很高兴能够将XHTML 1.0严格标记为几年的b / b
，所以我只想找到关于这个问题的一些反馈。
谢谢，
Tim
Timothy Larson< th ********* @ cox达网络>写道：
几年前，似乎XHTML是大多数网站标记的方向，已成定局。现在我回到现场，我看到很多
在这里建议作者坚持使用HTML，尽管是严格的模式。
发生了什么？为什么转变？ XHTML的问题是什么？大多数人都说在大多数情况下都避免使用它？
请为我们提供另一个HTML vs XHTML帖子，这个问题已经讨论了这个问题。使用档案查找参数和
网址。
我能否认为这个
组似乎认为HTML5将成为未来的方向
网而不是XHTML2？
没有人知道。 Safari，Opera和Mozilla正在支持WhatWG
项目，并已开始实现Web表单2.0和Web的一些内容。
应用程序1.0又名（X）HTML5提案。我不知道UAs中对XHTML2的任何现有支持。
-
Spartanicus
Timothy Larson写道：几年前，似乎XHTML是大多数网页
标记的方向，已成定局。
糟糕，不恰当地完成XHTML。
Mea culpa。
现在我回到现场，我看到了很多
在这里建议作者坚持使用HTML，尽管是严格的模式。
我们学会了如何正确地做XHTML。然后很多人（虽然不是我自己的b $ b）决定完全拒绝XHTML。
我几乎完全使用XHTML进行内部处理，完全用于我的
移动设备输出，有时（如附录C）一般网站
工作。 XHTML（C）_does_在广泛的网络上工作，但你必须知道你在做什么。
发生了什么？为什么转变？
我们意识到XHTML-not-in-XML直到那里才真正使用
才能真正从中受益的XML消费者。
我可以认为这个群体似乎认为HTML5是<将成为未来的网络方向
XHTML存在问题，对于一般发布来说还为时过早。
HTML 5然而是完全虚假和一个人的运动和他们的b $ b $ acolytes把他们的玩具扔出婴儿车。 Hixie在Winer照片旁边的我的
飞镖上。
我预测（并在一两年内引用我的尴尬）
XHTML即将广泛采用。它不会像
页面那样，但它将作为页面片段传递给AJAX客户端。
这些终于是真正了解XML的广泛客户，即使他们的父页面没有以XML格式表示，也需要
。
我们也会看到回归浏览器嗅探。基于AJAX的厚实
客户端用于浏览器，可以限制功能兼容性
页面用纯HTML表示那些不能。
而不是XHTML2？
我想看看Flash而不是XHTML 2！现在_that_
实际上是一个博世。
2006年4月11日星期二，Timothy Larson写道：
< blockquote class =post_quotes>几年前，似乎XHTML是大多数web
标记的方向，已成定局。现在我回到现场，我看到很多
在这里建议作者坚持使用HTML，尽管是严格的模式。
我很乐意将标记为XHTML 1.0 Strict现在好几年了，所以我只想找到关于这个问题的一些反馈。
XHTML 1可以做的任何事情，HTML 4可以做得更好。
嗯...至少和...一样好。 XHTML 1.0没有任何好处 -
肯定不是来自XHTML 1.0 Transitional，我们经常在网上发现
，主要是以当您询问有关XHTML 1.1的问题时，请尝试使用Internet Exploder 6，然后单击
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...notation.xhtml
更不用说谷歌。
-
6月6日是比尔盖茨日。
A couple years ago it seemed like XHTML was the direction of most web
markup, a foregone conclusion. Now I return to the scene and I see many
here recommending that authors stick to HTML, albeit in strict mode.
What happened? Why the shift? What''s the problem with XHTML that has
everyone saying it be avoided in most cases? Can I take it that this
group seems to think HTML5 is going to be the future direction of the
web rather than XHTML2?
I''ve been happily going along marking stuff up as XHTML 1.0 Strict for a
couple years now, so I was just looking for some feedback on this issue.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy Larson <th*********@cox.net> wrote:
A couple years ago it seemed like XHTML was the direction of most web
markup, a foregone conclusion. Now I return to the scene and I see many
here recommending that authors stick to HTML, albeit in strict mode.
What happened? Why the shift? What''s the problem with XHTML that has
everyone saying it be avoided in most cases?
Please spare us yet another HTML vs XHTML thread, this issue has been
discussed ad nauseum here. Use the archives to find the arguments and
the urls.
Can I take it that this
group seems to think HTML5 is going to be the future direction of the
web rather than XHTML2?
No-one knows. Safari, Opera and Mozilla are supporting the WhatWG
projects and have started to implement bits of the Web forms 2.0 and Web
Applications 1.0 aka (X)HTML5 proposals. I''m not aware of any current
support for XHTML2 in UAs.
--
Spartanicus
Timothy Larson wrote:A couple years ago it seemed like XHTML was the direction of most web
markup, a foregone conclusion.
Bad, inappropriately done XHTML.
Mea culpa.
Now I return to the scene and I see many
here recommending that authors stick to HTML, albeit in strict mode.
We learned how to do XHTML correctly. Then many people (although not
myself) decided to reject XHTML completely.
I use almost entirely XHTML for my internal processing, totally for my
mobile device output, and sometimes (as Appendix C) for general web
work. XHTML (C) _does_ work on the widespread web, but you have to
know what you''re doing.
What happened? Why the shift?
We realised that "XHTML-not-in-XML" wasn''t really much use until there
are XML-aware consumers that can actually benefit from it.
Can I take it that this group seems to think HTML5 is
going to be the future direction of the web
XHTML is problematic and still premature for general publishing.
HTML 5 however is totally bogus and an exercise in one person and their
acolytes throwing their toys out of the pram. Hixie is up on my
dartboard next to the photo of Winer.
I predict (and quote me embarassingly on this in a year or two) that
XHTML is just about set for widespread adoption. It won''t be as
"pages", but it will be as page fragments delivered to AJAX clients.
These are finally the widespread clients that really understand XML,
even if their parent pages aren''t doing it as XML.
We''ll also see a return to browser sniffing. AJAX-based "thickish"
clients for the browsers that can, restricted function compatibility
pages in plain HTML for those that can''t.
rather than XHTML2?
I''d like to see a move towards Flash rather than XHTML 2! Now _that_
really is a bogosity.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Timothy Larson wrote:
A couple years ago it seemed like XHTML was the direction of most web
markup, a foregone conclusion. Now I return to the scene and I see many
here recommending that authors stick to HTML, albeit in strict mode.
I''ve been happily going along marking stuff up as XHTML 1.0 Strict for a
couple years now, so I was just looking for some feedback on this issue.
Anything XHTML 1 can do, HTML 4 can do better.
Well ... at least as well as. There''s nothing to gain from XHTML 1.0 -
certainly not from XHTML 1.0 Transitional, which we find so often
on the web, mostly in the form of "div soup".
When you ask about XHTML 1.1, try Internet Exploder 6 on
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...notation.xhtml
not to mention Google.
--
The 6th of June is Bill Gates Day.
这篇关于HTML与XHTML的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
