» »

XHTML reference?

XHTML reference?

Loki ::

zanima me, ce kdo pozna kak XHTML reference manual (nekaj v stilu php manuala recimo) v PDF ali se raje CHM?

(<torej opis vseh tagov..., kje se jih da uporabljat, kje ne - lep primer za to je, da mores npr. select tag dat v <p> ali <div> v formu v xhtml strict)
TIA
  • spremenil: Loki ()

darh ::

mislm da celotnega ni.. vsaj jaz ga nism najdu.. mam samo diferences med xhtml in html4.1
Excuses are useless! Results are priceless!

centio ::

Specifikacija na w3c ja najvec kar bos nasel:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
sicer je pa izsel nacrt za xhtml 2 in bi bilo mogoce najboljse da zacnes kar pri tem:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/

Zgodovina sprememb…

  • spremenil: centio ()

Loki ::

xhtml 2 se ni uradno izsel, ampak imajo sele "working draft", poleg tega vsaj zase vem, da ga ne bom uporabljal, dokler ne bosta sle min. 2 generaciji browserjev mim, ker je glavna znacilnost le-tega standarda popolna nezdruzljivost za nazaj:
5 August 2002: The first public Working Draft of XHTML 2.0 has been published. XHTML 2.0 is a next generation markup language, intended for rich, portable web-based applications. Note that while the ancestry of XHTML 2 comes from HTML 4, XHTML 1.0, and XHTML 1.1, it is not intended to be backward compatible with its earlier versions. Also, this first draft does not include the implementations of XHTML 2.0 in either DTD or XML Schema form yet. Those will be included in subsequent versions, once the contents of this language stabilizes. Please send comments to www-html-editor@w3.org (archive).


-recimo <img /> in <link /> taga so zamenjali z <object>, <form> ne bo vec, temvec jih bodo zamenjali XForms itd. (ceprav to se ne pomeni, da je to slabo; glej spodnji link)

XHTML 2 - just another standard?
In se working example
ter se tole - sicer veliko krajse, vendar je zato reply #1 toliko bolj zanimiv (res pa je, da bo delal sam, ce bo stran presla xhtml validator)

Zgodovina sprememb…

  • spremenil: Loki ()

centio ::

A tako? Nisem imel cajta prestudirat tole o xhtml 2, zdi se mi pa da bo standard prinesel dosti novega v primerjavi z xhtml1.1 (se vedno govorim na podlagi netemeljitega branja).
Moje izkusnje z xhtml-om niso bile pozitivne, zato sem tudi takoj predlagal xhtml 2, vendar pa kot vidim, bo potrebno se kar nekaj casa pocakati.

darh ::

centio: negativne izkušnje? sej je vse isto kt pr html4.1 edin moraš pazt da je vse strict in da imaš zaključene tage.. .to je pa tud vse..
Excuses are useless! Results are priceless!

centio ::

Aha, tako sem tudi sam mislil in bil navdusen ob branju enega clanka kjer se je govorilo kako je xhtml kompatibilen z vecino browserjev, vendar pa edino ob pogoju da je well formed. Vse lepo in prav, dokler nisem prisel do procesa validacije, ki mi je kar naprej nasteval errorje.
Potem mi je koncno uspelo narediti well formed xhtml, a glej ga zlomka; netskejp je spet kodo prikaozoval po svoje oz. narobe.

darh ::

moj output (izdelani projekti), se ponavadi držijo tega: "A ne dela v Netscapu(Operi)? Jah... stran je narejena po standardih, validator ne pokaže napak, pol pa ne vem, kdo bo mogu tukej kej spremenit." :D
Excuses are useless! Results are priceless!

centio ::

Ja, no, OK, vendar pa v cem je potem poanta? Za kaj sploh potem rabimo xhtml?

darh ::

XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4. XHTML family document types are XML based, and ultimately are designed to work in conjunction with XML-based user agents. The details of this family and its evolution are discussed in more detail in the section on Future Directions. XHTML 1.0 is the first document type in the XHTML family. It is a reformulation of the three HTML 4 document types as applications of XML 1.0. It is intended to be used as a language for content that is both XML-conforming and, if some simple guidelines [p.23] are followed, operates in HTML 4 conforming user agents. Developers who migrate their content to XHTML 1.0 will realize the following benefits:

  • XHTML documents are XML conforming. As such, they are readily viewed, edited, and validated with standard XML tools.
  • XHTML documents can be written to to operate as well or better than they did before in existing HTML 4-conforming user agents as well as in new, XHTML 1.0 conforming user
    agents.
  • XHTML documents can utilize applications (e.g. scripts and applets) that rely upon either the HTML Document Object Model or the XML Document Object Model [DOM] [p.29] .
  • As the XHTML family evolves, documents conforming to XHTML 1.0 will be more likely to interoperate within and among various XHTML environments.


The XHTML family is the next step in the evolution of the Internet. By migrating to XHTML today, content developers can enter the XML world with all of its attendant benefits, while still remaining confident in their content's backward and future compatibility.


Document developers and user agent designers are constantly discovering new ways to express their ideas through new markup. In XML, it is relatively easy to introduce new elements or additional element attributes. The XHTML family is designed to accommodate these extensions through XHTML modules and techniques for developing new XHTML-conforming modules (described in the forthcoming XHTML Modularization specification). These modules will permit the combination of existing and new feature sets when developing content and when designing new user agents.

Alternate ways of accessing the Internet are constantly being introduced. Some estimates indicate that by the year 2002, 75% of Internet document viewing will be carried out on
these alternate platforms. The XHTML family is designed with general user agent interoperability in mind. Through a new user agent and document profiling mechanism, servers, proxies, and user agents will be able to perform best effort content transformation. Ultimately, it will be possible to develop XHTML-conforming content that is usable by any XHTML-conforming user agent.

8-)
Excuses are useless! Results are priceless!

Loki ::

in se tole:
I'm not sure that I think neater is the word I would choose. The standards body prefers to call it well-formed. The advantages of XHTML are many, although they may not be obvious at first.

Really, XHTML is little more than HTML 4, but with strict enforcement of the SGML tag-style markup, which we all know as XML. Simply put, HTML is broken by nature. It is not well-formed, and thus it is not DOM friendly, not data friendly, and as we all surely know, not browser friendly.

XML, on the other hand, is completely DOM friendly. Though still in its infancy, it is also quite browser-friendly. And who wouldn't agree that XML is extremely data friendly? All this is made possible by using a simple set of syntactical rules, and enforcing them strictly.

So, by merging HTML and XML, you get a data document (which is what HTML was always intended to be) that represents document markup, and does so without breaking its ability to be treated as data.

So what we end up with is a much neater document (to use your word) that browsers, or other apps, can read without complex, bug-ridden parsers, making browser compatibility far more tangible than the mess we have today. But it doesn't stop there...

For instance, in an XHTML document where you provide the latest headlines, I can make an XML parsing script that pulls only the headlines I want from your page.

Or if I have three sources that provide XML feeds of data (RSS blogs, maybe?) I can directly include their XML (unedited) into my XHTML document and apply my CSS or XSL to format it, eliminating the need for all the server-intensive code that would normally be used to translate three independant data sources into one consistent HTML document.

Or, lets say I have an web page where everything pretty much stays the same, but one line of text will change daily. Using HTML, that would mean setting up markers in the file (using comments) to identify what section to edit, as well as an irritating search algorythm. Or worse, some over-zealous developer will get the department to move the whole thing to a PHP or ASP or (insert app-server here) enabled web server to run the whole thing as a script for one line of text to change! But with XHTML, a single script could easily identify that line using a tag's ID attribute, and alter its contents, and even do all this over FTP in one swift automated motion.

All this just scratches the surface of what makes XHTML a good idea...

centio ::

A vi ze uporabljate xhtml in zakaj ga tako gorece zagovarjate? Saj se jaz zavedam prednosti (teoreticno) ki naj bi jih prinesel tak standard, vendar pa kot sem ze napisal, v praksi se mi je vse pokazalo mal drugace.

Mislim da bo pri meni najbolj drzala naslednja trditev:
The advantages of XHTML are many, although they may not be obvious at first.
Vseeno pa mislim da bo naslednja stran ki jo bom delal narejena v xhtml-u, saj ze zdaj vsak html "spuscam" skozi validator. Kljub nerganju, mislim, da se vseeno splaca mal potruditi okrog xhtml-a.

darh ::

moj source je vsaj XHTML 1.0 Transitional, če ne že Strict!
Excuses are useless! Results are priceless!

centio ::

Ko smo ze pri tem, da ne bi odpiral nove teme, kako pa kaj stojite s xml-om?

darh ::

xml je čist nekej drugega... in bi blo boljs odpret drugo temo... sicer smo pa glede xhtmlja že vse povedal.. right ? ;)


XMLje men tko... nerodn :) ne maram ga kej preveč... čeprov ga bom zdejel ponucal za en projekt.....
Excuses are useless! Results are priceless!

dnapas ::

xhtml bo zraven prinesel tudi xforms. Forme, kjer je programska logika locena od prikaza, podatki se bodo prenaslali v xml formatu....

xml je v osnovi nekaj zelo dobrega, vendar delo z njim je pa nekaj drugega :\

darh ::

dnaps: točno tako... kot sem že reku... men se zdi ful neroden... so mi flat-text DB bolj pri srcu..
Excuses are useless! Results are priceless!


Vredno ogleda ...

TemaSporočilaOglediZadnje sporočilo
TemaSporočilaOglediZadnje sporočilo
»

HTML5 podpora

Oddelek: Izdelava spletišč
191599 (1309) drola
»

Doctype - kateri HTML doctype

Oddelek: Izdelava spletišč
172225 (1891) gregy
»

[Debata] W3C - HTML vs. XHTML

Oddelek: Izdelava spletišč
182154 (1907) sverde21
»

iframe vs. div

Oddelek: Izdelava spletišč
121416 (1274) NeOman
»

izdelava podstrani

Oddelek: Izdelava spletišč
121912 (1742) Bob Rock

Več podobnih tem