它真的存在任何xhtml 2吗？ [英] does it really exist any xhtml 2?
问题描述
大家好。请原谅一些技术术语的错误，但用英语写作
英语并不像意大利语那么简单。
我正在设计我们的新网站而且，既然我想做一些事情，那么
将会持续尽可能长的时间，因为我一点都不着急，我想b $ b想要使用最多最新的创作语言。
i在过去使用了相当多的html 4.01，然后我最近仔细阅读了
w3上的xhtml 1.0规范.org网站 - 正好
几十页，确实 - 并对我写的
页面做了一些修改，让它们被验证为xhtml 1.0严格。
为此感到高兴 - 因为我似乎明白xhtml 2.0是xhtml 1.0的演变，这就是我想要的原因使用xhtml 2.0准备我的网站
而不是只是 1.0--，我在w3.org上下载了xhtml 2.0的大量
参考并打印出来 - 每天10小时
前面的显示器就足够了我更喜欢阅读印刷纸 - 。
当然，我还没有读完所有内容而且我不会去：我会用这个印刷的纸砖作为参考，在阅读后使用
最重要的东西，但是，在阅读时，为了更好地理解我正在尝试实际的东西。
在xhtml 2.0的文档中，我发现了这一点（第20页）：
<？xml version =" 1.0" encoding =" UTF-8"？>
<？xml-stylesheet type =" text / css"
href =" http：// www .w3.org / MarkUp / style / xhtml2.css"？>
<！DOCTYPE html PUBLIC" - // W3C // DTD XHTML 2.0 // EN"
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd">
< html xmlns =" http：//www.w3.org/ 2002/06 / XHTML2 /" xml：lang =" en"
xmlns：xsi =" http：//www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi：schemaLocation = " http：//www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd"
< head>
< title>虚拟图书馆< / title>
< / head>
< body>
< p>已移至< a href =" http：//example.org/"> example.org< / a> ;< / p>
< / body>
< / html>
我做的第一件事我们完成的是复制以上所有内容并将其粘贴到
..html文档中，然后在 http://validate.w3.org
*确定*它是有效的xhtml 2.0或有效的东西。
i真的很惊讶它是无效（没有doctype
found）。我立刻想到了第一个<？xml blahblah>这是
问题，因为它们出现在我在xhtml 1.0中找到的例子中。
文档 - 这里写的<？xms ...>没有必要，但
欢迎并建议;问题是*没有*他们中的任何一个
验证你的页面 - 。
删除前2<？xml ..？> ;我有一个32页
错误的页面和一个红色块说这个页面*不是*有效 - // W3C // DTD
XHTML 2.0 // EN" ;.然后验证器甚至不知道xhtml 2.0
是什么，是吗？
好吧，开玩笑，我不明白我是什么上面提到的所有内容，我都错过了什么是错误的。我想转移到xhtml 2.0 *之前*有* b $ b写了几十页，如果它是可取的，或者知道和
理解为什么它是建议*不*，如果是后者，为什么w3
为xhtml 1准备了32页文档，为xhtml 2准备了241页？
谢谢为你的时间和耐心。
问候，
-
Gianni Rondinini（30，tanti，RA）
尼康用户 - 宝马驱动程序
$ b $bParchèmè和pòtsécavieèszazaciapéibajoc！
< blockquote>Gianni Rondinini写道：
好吧，开玩笑，我不明白我错过了什么和错了
以上所有。我想在写入几十页之前移动到xhtml 2.0 *，如果它是可取的，或者知道并且理解为什么它是可取的*不是*，并且，如果是后者，为什么w3
为xhtml 1准备了32页文档，为xhtml 2准备了241页？
您下载的内容可能是公共工作草案对于XHTML 2.0
这还不是一个互联网标准，即使它确实成为一个
的互联网标准，它还需要很长时间才能开始使用网页
了解它的浏览器。
事实上，仍然有很多浏览器知道很少或者
没有关于XHTML 1.0的内容，所以你最好坚持使用HTML 4.01
strict - 它几乎被所有浏览器所接受，而且它是
可能会做你需要的一切。那么为什么要使用其他任何东西？
这一切都很好地试图跟上最新的趋势，但看看它这样的方式：b $ b：如果你想开车环游世界，你会选择一辆以无铅汽油运行的汽车，还是一辆运行最新氢燃料汽车的汽车？b $ b细胞？显然你会选择汽油发动机，因为几乎没有任何加油站可以为氢燃料电池充电。
同样适用于网络浏览器 - - 如果必须，请使用最新技术，
但不要指望世界其他地方跟上。
-
phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
Philip Ronan< in ***** @ invalid。无效>写道：
[...]坚持使用HTML 4.01
严格 - 几乎所有浏览器都接受它，
HTML 4.01中有很多东西是不被支持的 -
正确，或者根本不是任何浏览器。 *用户
代理*广泛接受的是自由式文本/ HTML。
-
|||十六进制EBB
oo十进制3771
--oOo - （） - oOo--八进制7273
205再见二进制111010111011
2005年11月25日星期五，Eric B. Bednarz写道：
Philip Ronan< in ***** @ invalid。无效>写道：
[...]坚持使用HTML 4.01
严格 - 几乎所有浏览器都接受它，
HTML 4.01中有很多东西是不被支持的 -
正确，或者根本没有 - 任何浏览器。
足够真实;但问题的关键是转向任何
风味的XHTML都不会改善他们的行为。 *如果选择* XHTML
，一般网络使用的唯一实用选择是XHTML / 1.0
附录C，那就是 - 按设计 - 功能相当于
HTML / 4.01。由于大多数浏览器设计为
slurp HTML而不是XHTML，在我看来，工作
结论 - 就一般网络使用而言 - 是很明显。
出于专业或实验目的，当然可能需要考虑不同的
。
hi all. please excuse the misusage of some tech terms, but writing in
english is not as easy as in italian :)
i''m designing our new website and, since i want to do something that
will last as long as possible and since i''m not in a hurry at all, i
wanted to use the most up-to-date authoring language.
i use quite a lot html 4.01 in the past, then i recently read
carefully the xhtml 1.0 specifications on the w3.org website --just
few dozens of pages, indeed-- and made slight modifications to the
pages i''ve written to have them validated as xhtml 1.0 strict.
glad for this --and since i seem to understand that xhtml 2.0 is the
evolution of xhtml 1.0 and this is why i''d like to prepare my website
using xhtml 2.0 and not "just" 1.0--, i downloaded the extensive
reference for xhtml 2.0 on w3.org and printed it --10 hours a day in
front of a monitor is enough and i prefer reading printed paper--. of
course, i still haven''t read everything and i''m not going to: i''ll use
this printed paper brick for reference, after reading the most
important things, but, while reading, to better understand i''m trying
the things in practice.
on the documentation for xhtml 2.0, i found this (p. 20):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css"
href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/style/xhtml2.css"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd"
<head>
<title>Virtual Library</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>Moved to <a href="http://example.org/">example.org</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
the first thing i''ve done is to copy all the above and paste it in a
..html document, then validate it on http://validate.w3.org being
*sure* it was valid xhtml 2.0 or valid-something.
i was really surprised by the fact it was "not valid (no doctype
found)". i immediately thought that the first <?xml blahblah> were the
problem, as they are in the examples i found in xhtml 1.0
documentation --there''s written <?xms ...> isn''t necessary, but
welcome and suggested; the problem is there *musn''t* be any of them to
validate your pages--.
after removing the leading 2 <?xml ..?> lines, i got a page with 32
errors and a red block saying "this page is *not* valid -//W3C//DTD
XHTML 2.0//EN". then the validator doesn''t even know what xhtml 2.0
is, does it?
ok, joking apart, i don''t understand what i''m missing and what''s wrong
with all the above. i''d like to move to xhtml 2.0 *before* having
written dozens of pages, if it''s advisable to, or to know and
understand why it is advisable *not* to, and, if the latter, why w3
prepared 32 pages of docs for xhtml 1 and 241 for xhtml 2?
thanks for your time and patience.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
Parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e shelf sèza ciapé i bajoc!
"Gianni Rondinini" wrote:
ok, joking apart, i don''t understand what i''m missing and what''s wrong
with all the above. i''d like to move to xhtml 2.0 *before* having
written dozens of pages, if it''s advisable to, or to know and
understand why it is advisable *not* to, and, if the latter, why w3
prepared 32 pages of docs for xhtml 1 and 241 for xhtml 2?
What you downloaded was probably the public workihng draft for XHTML 2.0
This is not an internet standard yet, and even when it does become an
internet standard, it will be a long time before everybody starts using web
browsers that know anything about it.
In fact, there are still lots of browsers out there that know little or
nothing about XHTML 1.0, so in you''re better off sticking with HTML 4.01
strict -- it''s accepted by almost every browser in existence, and it
probably does everything you need. So why bother using anything else?
It''s all very well trying to keep up with the latest trends, but look at it
this way: if you wanted to drive round the world, would you choose a car
that runs on unleaded petrol, or a car that runs on the latest hydrogen fuel
cells? Obviously you would choose the petrol engine, because there are
hardly any filling stations that can recharge a hydrogen fuel cell.
The same applies to web browsers -- use the latest technology if you must,
but don''t expect the rest of the world to keep up.
--
phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
Philip Ronan <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:
[...] sticking with HTML 4.01
strict -- it''s accepted by almost every browser in existence,
There''s quite a lot of stuff in HTML 4.01 that isn''t supported --
properly, or at all -- by any browser. What''s widely accepted by *user
agents* is freestyle text/html.
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:
Philip Ronan <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:[...] sticking with HTML 4.01
strict -- it''s accepted by almost every browser in existence,
There''s quite a lot of stuff in HTML 4.01 that isn''t supported --
properly, or at all -- by any browser.
True enough; but the point at issue is that moving to XHTML of any
flavour would *not* improve their behaviour. *If* XHTML is going to
be chosen, the only practical choice for general web use is XHTML/1.0
"Appendix C", and that is - by design - functionally equivalent to
HTML/4.01. Since most of the browsers out there were designed to
slurp HTML rather than XHTML, it seems to me that the working
conclusion - in terms of general web use - is rather evident.
For specialised or experimental purposes, of course, different
considerations might apply.
这篇关于它真的存在任何xhtml 2吗？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！
