验证：XHTML Transitional与HTLM 4.01严格 [英] Validation: XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict
问题描述
构建和验证之间的优缺点是什么？
XHTML Transitional与HTLM 4.01严格
谢谢，CMA
2004年7月23日星期五17:10:46 GMT，CMAR< cm *** @ yahoo.com>写道：
构建和验证之间的优缺点是什么？XHTML Transitional与HTLM 4.01 Strict
谢谢，CMA
如果你使用XML工具来构建页面，那么如果你能够正确地提供它，那么XHTML是值得的（包括对那组浏览器进行计算
无法处理正确服务的XHTML）。
否则，我没有任何好处。
< br>
CMAR写道：
在XHTML Transitional与HTLM 4.01 Strict之间构建和验证的优缺点
您比较不同语言的不同变体。让's $
将它们分开。
过渡时期v。严格
----------- -----------
过渡是指从HTML 3.2过渡（得到它？）
伪桌面发布标记到更多SGML语义标记。
严格来说是非常少的表现辅助，所以你几乎只会依赖
CSS布局/颜色。我认为这是一个
的优势。 CSS为您提供更多选择，并且效率更高。这也是浏览器漏洞中令人沮丧的实验，所以要自己动手。
获胜者？严格
XHTML v HTML
------------
XHTML是HTML作为XML应用程序的重构。很多人
认为这是优越的，因为它是在HTML 4之后，因此是最新标准的
。但他们没有任何理由使用它除了
它是最新的。
XHTML没有优于HTML的优势在标记方面。没有
的额外元素，没有完全不同的结构。尽管如此，
它应该使用不同的MIME类型。 HTML是
text / html，而XHTML是application / xhtml + xml。问题是
MSIE不理解这种新的MIME类型。所以服务器用
text / html发送它。这导致了它自己的问题：
http：// www .hixie.ch / advocacy / xhtml
既然它没有任何好处，但确实有缺点，答案似乎很明显，除非你有特殊理由需要XHTML。
获胜者？ HTML
简而言之，请使用HTML 4.01 /严格。
HTH
-
Brian（删除.invalid给我发电子邮件）
http：// www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian写道：
您比较不同语言的不同变体。
Jeez Louise。我姐姐误用了你的而不是你是在一封
给我的电子邮件中，显然它具有传染性。这应该是你是比较......。 （当然，把别人归咎于我的
搞砸是很可怜的，但那个人太尴尬了，不能自己摔倒。）
-
Brian（删除.invalid给我发电子邮件）
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
What are the pluses and minuses of constructing and validating between
XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict
Thanks, CMA
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:10:46 GMT, CMAR <cm***@yahoo.com> wrote:
What are the pluses and minuses of constructing and validating between
XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict
Thanks, CMA
If you use XML tools to build the page, XHTML is worthwhile if you can
serve it properly (which includes accounting for that set of browsers
which cannot handle properly-served XHTML).
Otherwise, there is no benefit I''m aware of.
CMAR wrote:
What are the pluses and minuses of constructing and validating
between XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict
Your comparing different variants of different languages. Let''s
separate them.
transitional v. strict
----------------------
transitional is meant to east the transition (get it?) from HTML 3.2
pseudo desktop publishing markup to a more SGML semantic markup. There
is very little presentational aid in strict, so you''ll be relying on
CSS almost exclusively for the layout/colors. I think that''s an
advantage. CSS gives you more options, and is more efficient. It is
also a depressing experiment in browser bugs, so brace yourself.
winner? strict
XHTML v HTML
------------
XHTML is a reformulation of HTML as an XML application. Lots of people
think it''s superior because it came after HTML 4, and is thus the
newest standard. But they don''t have any reason to use it other than
"it''s the latest".
XHTML offers no advantages over HTML in terms of markup. There are no
additional elements, no radically different constructs. Nonetheless,
it supposed to be served with a different MIME type. HTML is
text/html, whereas XHTML is application/xhtml+xml. The problem is that
MSIE does not understand this new MIME type. So servers send it with
text/html. That leads to its own problems:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
Since it offers no benefits, but does have drawbacks, the answer seems
obvious, unless you have specific reasons for needing XHTML.
winner? HTML
In short, use HTML 4.01/strict.
HTH
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote:
Your comparing different variants of different languages.
Jeez Louise. My sister just misused "your" instead of "you''re" in an
email to me, and apparently it''s contagious. That should be "You''re
comparing...." (Sure, it''s pathetic to blame someone else for my
screwups, but that one is too embarassing to take the fall by myself.)
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
这篇关于验证：XHTML Transitional与HTLM 4.01严格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！
