Website Design Forum - Going back to html 4

Author

Going back to html 4

The Bicycling Guitarist

2007-07-25, 3:22 am

In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
strict.

Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus. I have over
180 pages on my web site to convert. I am a bit disappointed, because when I
"upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
Apparently it was a bad idea. Comments, anyone?

The Bicycling Guitarist
www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/

Sherm Pendley

2007-07-25, 3:22 am

"The Bicycling Guitarist" <Chris@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> writes:

> In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
> After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
> strict.

It took you that long? :-)

> Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus.

I'd say it's more accurate to call it pointless. When it's served as text/html,
browsers parse it as HTML anyway, which not only eliminates the benefits of
XHTML (whatever those are...) but also causes problems and requires workarounds
that HTML would avoid.

> I have over 180 pages on my web site to convert.

Have a look at HTML Tidy - if your code is valid to begin with, converting 180
pages shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

<http://tidy.sourceforge.net/>

> I am a bit disappointed, because when I
> "upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
> Apparently it was a bad idea.

Following the latest trendy buzzword without actually analyzing its benefits
and/or pitfalls is usually a bad idea. Sometimes there really is some steak,
but more often than not you'll find nothing but sizzle.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Stan Brown

2007-07-25, 6:24 pm

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:42:59 -0700 from The Bicycling Guitarist
<Chris@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net>:
> In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
> After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
> strict.
>
> Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus. I have over
> 180 pages on my web site to convert. I am a bit disappointed, because when I
> "upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
> Apparently it was a bad idea. Comments, anyone?

You've been reading this group for some time, and I hope you've paid
attention to threads other than the ones you started.

The experts (which I am not) have pretty consistently advised
*against* XHTML because it gives no real-world advantages.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/20...e_wont_help_you

Andreas Prilop

2007-07-25, 6:24 pm

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote:

> In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
> After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
> strict.
> [...]
> Apparently it was a bad idea.

Yes.

> Comments, anyone?

But if you already *have* XHTML 1.0 Strict, then keep it!
If you have XHTML 1.0 Transitional, you might consider to change
to "Strict".

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sea...:Alan.J.Flavell

The Bicycling Guitarist

2007-07-25, 6:24 pm

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.2110ee9e4a42de7d98aede@news.individual.net...
> Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:42:59 -0700 from The Bicycling Guitarist
> <Chris@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net>:
>
> You've been reading this group for some time, and I hope you've paid
> attention to threads other than the ones you started.
>
Hi Stan and thanks for posting. I don't read every post, but I have learned
a lot from the questions asked and answered here. I think CIWA are the best
forums on the internet.

The Bicycling Guitarist

2007-07-25, 6:24 pm

"Andreas Prilop" <Prilop2007@trashmail.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0707251648330.4028@s5b004.rrzn.uni-hannover.de...
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote:
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> But if you already *have* XHTML 1.0 Strict, then keep it!
> If you have XHTML 1.0 Transitional, you might consider to change
> to "Strict".

What? If it's a bad idea to go to xhtml, then I certainly don't want to keep
it. Over the years I have converted most of my transitional pages to strict.
It only takes a minute or so most pages to change to HTML 4.01 Strict. I'll
be there soon and will pay more attention before switching next time.

Andreas Prilop

2007-07-25, 6:24 pm

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote:

> If it's a bad idea to go to xhtml, then I certainly don't want to keep it.

"To go" is a bad idea. But if you have already gone, it's pointless
to go again (back).

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sea...:Alan.J.Flavell

Dawid Michalczyk

2007-07-28, 6:22 pm

The Bicycling Guitarist wrote:
> In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
> After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
> strict.
>
> Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus. I have over
> 180 pages on my web site to convert. I am a bit disappointed, because when I
> "upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
> Apparently it was a bad idea. Comments, anyone?
>

Personally I stick to html 4 because it is the most compatible and the
least hassle to get it to work properly across different browsers.

--
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.comp.eonworks.com _Linux SysAdmin and Webmaster scripts_