XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

I was of the (possibly misguided) impression over the last several years
that XHTML 1.1 was the current direction of web publishing. Lurking
here, I sense a pronounced disdain for it. At the risk of incurring the
wrath of some here, could you give me some insight on this, and possible
direction. The last thing I need is to spend a lot more time and effort
"mastering" something that I shouldn't be doing in the first place.

Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

On Jul 10, 4:15 pm, William Gill wrote:
> I was of the (possibly misguided) impression over the last several years
> that XHTML 1.1 was the current direction of web publishing. Lurking
> here, I sense a pronounced disdain for it. At the risk of incurring the
> wrath of some here, could you give me some insight on this, and possible
> direction.

XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

David Dorward wrote:
> XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
> support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
> among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
> Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
> of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.

Thanks.

Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

William Gill wrote:
>
> David Dorward wrote:
>> XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
>> support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
>> among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
>> Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
>> of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.
>
> I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
> polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
> spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.

What a refreshing change! A poster who lurks first, writes clearly, and
responds politely! I was about to give up hope...

A well-behaved gentleman like yourself would be welcome in most any
technical discussion you'd care to contribute to. You might also want to
visit/lurk/participate at c.i.w.a.html, if you're not already.

One of the multitude of articles and discussions regarding XHTML is
sitting in my bookmarks (from 2005):
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200501/the_perils_of_u sing_xhtml_properly/
(which URL which probably wrap). That article comes from a different
direction, but touches on some of the issues to consider. Be sure to
read through the comments.

I haven't had need to touch XHTML so I stay with HTML 4.01 strict.

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

Scripsit David Dorward:

> XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
> support among clients)

The parenthetic remark is not correct. Ruby annotations are supported, with
limitations, by Internet Explorer (even in version 6). On the other hand, IE
is happy to do Ruby irrespectively of the document type you declare - it
does not care the least about the document type, except for analizing the
doctype string for the sole purpose of selecting Quirks vs. "Standards"
mode.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

In article <0_Oki.21270$RX.2972@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
William Gill wrote:

> David Dorward wrote:
> > XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
> > support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
> > among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
> > Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
> > of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.
>
> I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it
> polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better
> spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.

I am also engaged in the same process.

Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

On Jul 10, 6:34 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:
> Scripsit David Dorward:
> > XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
> > support among clients)
>
> The parenthetic remark is not correct. Ruby annotations are supported, with
> limitations, by Internet Explorer (even in version 6).

So that is one client that supports it, so long as you don't serve it
as application/xhtml+xml (which you "SHOULD" do).

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?

In article <4693c25e$1_6@news.bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking wrote:

> What a refreshing change! A poster who lurks first, writes clearly, and
> responds politely! I was about to give up hope...

Hang on there... give him time... he might change. It may be a
ploy to disarm you... I have been reflecting deeply on JK's point
about it being hard not to be cynical in _this_ world.

--
dorayme