Comments on: You’re Not My !DOCTYPE http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/ This is a blog about adventures in design, and sometimes other crap. My name is Beth Dean and I'm a web designer from Cleveland Ohio. I work for Progressive Insurance as a UX Developer. Mon, 21 May 2012 23:56:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Dana Kashubeck http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41743 Dana Kashubeck Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:34:38 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41743 I pretty much wrote a book on the meetup site, so I'll try to be short here ;) Writing XHTML instead of HTML was a decision I made a few years ago; back when HTML looked to be deprecated. Since that time things have changed. I agree that you don't currently get any enhancements by using XHTML (beside my beloved strict syntax). It was the promise of future support that lead me to favor XHTML. It was "backwards compatible", so no harm using it before the actual native support appeared in the browsers. No, it isn't technically correct. Yes, the browsers see our carefully crafted XHTML as HTML tag soup. But, if you do what it takes to make sure your XHTML is correct, then where is the problem? When/if browsers start supporting it natively, you're ready. If it never happens, well then you are just taking advantage of the forgiving nature of HTML---until you can correct it. When I started the discussion at meetup, I was on the fence, not really seeing the advantage any more of one over the other. My views have changed. I think that for your average, run-of-the-mill web page, HTML is the way to go. If for some reason you need the stricter structure provided by XHTML, then use it. HTML5 is being developed to support both syntaxes. For now, though, I don't think you'll burn for using XHTML and serving it as text/html. Unless, of course, you use it to serve a table-based design ;) I pretty much wrote a book on the meetup site, so I’ll try to be short here ;)

Writing XHTML instead of HTML was a decision I made a few years ago; back when HTML looked to be deprecated. Since that time things have changed.

I agree that you don’t currently get any enhancements by using XHTML (beside my beloved strict syntax). It was the promise of future support that lead me to favor XHTML. It was “backwards compatible”, so no harm using it before the actual native support appeared in the browsers.

No, it isn’t technically correct. Yes, the browsers see our carefully crafted XHTML as HTML tag soup. But, if you do what it takes to make sure your XHTML is correct, then where is the problem? When/if browsers start supporting it natively, you’re ready. If it never happens, well then you are just taking advantage of the forgiving nature of HTML—until you can correct it.
When I started the discussion at meetup, I was on the fence, not really seeing the advantage any more of one over the other. My views have changed. I think that for your average, run-of-the-mill web page, HTML is the way to go. If for some reason you need the stricter structure provided by XHTML, then use it. HTML5 is being developed to support both syntaxes. For now, though, I don’t think you’ll burn for using XHTML and serving it as text/html. Unless, of course, you use it to serve a table-based design ;)

]]> By: Nate Klaiber http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41440 Nate Klaiber Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:26:24 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41440 @Ethan Care to give an example of how you can take advantage of XHTML without the proper mimetype? I am interested. I wouldn't consider myself a mime-type zealot, but I have yet to see useful examples. @Ethan
Care to give an example of how you can take advantage of XHTML without the proper mimetype? I am interested.

I wouldn’t consider myself a mime-type zealot, but I have yet to see useful examples.

]]> By: Ethan http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41391 Ethan Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:20:22 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41391 Use XHTML 1.0 Transitional if you want the well-formedness of the spec, but don't want to deal with the MIME-type zealots. Personally, I think that anyone who maintains that <abbr title="eXtensible Hyper Text Markup Language">XHTML</abbr> can <em>only</em> be used with <code>application/xhtml+xml</code> should reread <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt">RFC 2119</a>. Use XHTML 1.0 Transitional if you want the well-formedness of the spec, but don’t want to deal with the MIME-type zealots.

Personally, I think that anyone who maintains that XHTML can only be used with application/xhtml+xml should reread RFC 2119.

]]> By: beth http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41298 beth Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:39:22 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41298 Nate, you don't sound harsh :) I enjoy a good debate. I'll elaborate more on our reasonings, situations, and why I disagree with the coworker in my follow up post. I thought I had read the whole meetup argument but I just scraped the surface, so I am going to finish that before I go into more detail. Nate, you don’t sound harsh :) I enjoy a good debate. I’ll elaborate more on our reasonings, situations, and why I disagree with the coworker in my follow up post.

I thought I had read the whole meetup argument but I just scraped the surface, so I am going to finish that before I go into more detail.

]]> By: Nate Klaiber http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41280 Nate Klaiber Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:22:54 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41280 As Brendan already stated, if you want to enforce standards and clean markup - then why Transitional? Even if you are re-designing - wouldn't it be better to use strict, catch the errors and then fix them? Personally, I have yet to see a useful example of how XHTML will enhance anything. I have made my argument on the meetup.com, but scraping a site isn't a good example or reason, and neither is 'forcing me to write clean code' (in my opinion). From a technical perspective your colleagues have hit the nail on the head. If you are never going to use any XML/MathML, etc- then why XHTML? And - there are deeper implications of just 'flipping a switch' like others thing it will be possible to do. There are technical considerations to actually implement it properly (in regards to CSS/JS/etc). So, aside from 'it forces me to write clean code' - what is the real purpose of XHTML that makes it any better than HTML? (side note - sorry if I sound harsh, I just enjoy this debate...he) As Brendan already stated, if you want to enforce standards and clean markup - then why Transitional? Even if you are re-designing - wouldn’t it be better to use strict, catch the errors and then fix them?

Personally, I have yet to see a useful example of how XHTML will enhance anything. I have made my argument on the meetup.com, but scraping a site isn’t a good example or reason, and neither is ‘forcing me to write clean code’ (in my opinion).

From a technical perspective your colleagues have hit the nail on the head. If you are never going to use any XML/MathML, etc- then why XHTML? And - there are deeper implications of just ‘flipping a switch’ like others thing it will be possible to do. There are technical considerations to actually implement it properly (in regards to CSS/JS/etc).

So, aside from ‘it forces me to write clean code’ - what is the real purpose of XHTML that makes it any better than HTML?

(side note - sorry if I sound harsh, I just enjoy this debate…he)

]]> By: beth http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41274 beth Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:31:46 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41274 Brendan, I see your point about what does it matter. Our particular situation was this: We were completely redesigning our site. This meant most markup would be new, and cleaned up. But in the time frame allocated it would have been impossible to catch all the old nasty stuff. We wanted to go the direction of XHTML, so we chose transitional thinking that would be the most painless going forward. Eventually all the nasty code will be replaced, most of it already has, and at that time we can move into a strict doctype. Declaring the Doctype as XHTML rather than HTML4 didn't take us any additional time, because we were attempting to remove as much presentational crap as possible, we just knew we wouldn't get all of it. Brendan, I see your point about what does it matter.

Our particular situation was this:

We were completely redesigning our site. This meant most markup would be new, and cleaned up. But in the time frame allocated it would have been impossible to catch all the old nasty stuff. We wanted to go the direction of XHTML, so we chose transitional thinking that would be the most painless going forward. Eventually all the nasty code will be replaced, most of it already has, and at that time we can move into a strict doctype.

Declaring the Doctype as XHTML rather than HTML4 didn’t take us any additional time, because we were attempting to remove as much presentational crap as possible, we just knew we wouldn’t get all of it.

]]> By: Brendan http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41270 Brendan Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:11:20 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41270 Oops, just emailed you back with some more of my thoughts on the matter. Which you can post later or throw out or do whatever with. As for the code cleanliness you menton, if you're using a Transitional DOCTYPE, what does it really matter if you write "well-formed markup" or not? :) If you still have to support presentational elements in your legacy code, might the time switching it to XHTML Transitional been better spent removing the presentation and"cleaning it up" to HTML Strict? Oops, just emailed you back with some more of my thoughts on the matter. Which you can post later or throw out or do whatever with.

As for the code cleanliness you menton, if you’re using a Transitional DOCTYPE, what does it really matter if you write “well-formed markup” or not? :)

If you still have to support presentational elements in your legacy code, might the time switching it to XHTML Transitional been better spent removing the presentation and”cleaning it up” to HTML Strict?

]]> By: beth http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41268 beth Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:58:48 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41268 Yes I did read that before I posted this :) In regards to the CWSA site I don't really feel one way or the other about it now, because I hope such a site would have a short lifecycle (constant reiterations.) Yes I did read that before I posted this :) In regards to the CWSA site I don’t really feel one way or the other about it now, because I hope such a site would have a short lifecycle (constant reiterations.)

]]> By: Bridget Stewart http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41261 Bridget Stewart Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:46:52 +0000 http://resistmedia.net/blog/2007/12/12/youre-not-my-doctype/#comment-41261 Funny how this topic/discussion/debate is resurfacing in various places. Did you see this same discussion take place on the CWSA meetup forums? I will find it interesting to hear your opinion. I look forward to reading it. Funny how this topic/discussion/debate is resurfacing in various places. Did you see this same discussion take place on the CWSA meetup forums? I will find it interesting to hear your opinion. I look forward to reading it.

]]>