A static webpage is an HTML web page and a dynamic web pages are XHTML. All modern browsers support XHTML. HTML stands for Hypertext Markup Language, whereas XHTML stands for Extensible Markup Language.
Prev.Sergey Mavrody in Syntax, What's Next, WHATWGThanks for clicking CSEMA Videos In this video you will get the major differences between the XML and HTML with detailed description,so be with me and Please.XML provide a framework to define markup languages. XHTML is the modern version of HTML 4. An XML application of HTML is defined as XHTML.
XML is dynamic because it is used for both display. In Html, not necessary to close all the tag. Loosely Defined syntax compared to XML. Mandatory to close all the tags. Syntax is strictly defined which means.
Then it can be compared to a program that will not be compiled until all the.The W3C first public working draft of "Polyglot Markup" recommendation describes polyglot HTML document as a document that conforms to both the HTML and XHTML syntax by using a common subset of both the HTML and XHTML and in a nutshell the HTML5 polyglot document is:Polyglot document could serve as either HTML or XHTML, depending on browser support and MIME type. I'd like to review what it takes to transform an HTML5 polyglot document into a valid XHTML5 document: it appears, finally the 'XHTML5' has become an official name.Definition, difference between HTML, XML and XHTML, and the future of these. XHTML differences, as well as specifics of a polyglot HTML document that also would be able to serve HTML5 document as valid XML document.
However it is strongly recommended to configure the encoding using server HTTP Content-Type header, otherwise this character encoding could be included in the document as part of a meta tag. To me this is like a test, if you don’t have a need for these namespaces in your document, then the use of XHTML is overkill in the first place.Finally, the basic XHTML5 document would look like this:The XML declaration is not required if the default UTF-8 encoding is used: an XHTML5 validator would not mind if it is omitted. Secondary namespace such as SVG, MathML, Xlink, etc. Of course, the XML MIME type is not yet supported by the current version Internet Explorer though IE can render XHTML documents. Definition is optional, but it would be useful in a polyglot document by preventing browser quirks mode.This MIME declaration is not visible in the source code, but it would appear in the HTTP Content-Type header that could be configured on the server.
It’s used for validation but with the HTML5 doctype the only thing you can validate is the name of the root element. Unless we need that extensibility, HTML5 is the way to go.HTML5 Rationale document ↔ Version 1.3 of the Validator.nu HTML Parser Released 26 Responses to “XHTML5 in a nutshell”The doctype is useless in non-polyglot XHTML5. The disadvantage is the lack of Internet Explorer support, more verbose code, and error handling.
In the worst case, the connection ends and the file is incomplete and truncated.In the case of HTML, the issue is minor as there exists a graceful degradation provided by the browser. There are times that the whole HTML/XHTML file take multiple seconds or a significant fraction of a minute. Internet connections and servers situation may not be always perfect. It’s those stupid scripts (from advertisers) and network speed (which neither sides may be able to control).Currently browsers rely heavily on incremental rendering for giving users the best experiences. It’s always been denied that XHTML has the future, but since IE9 has support, XHTML should eventually win for the web’s sake.To those who say XHTML could be faster than HTML:XHTML documents may indeed be a bit faster to be parsed, but the bottleneck is never the parser.
Closed tags, lowercase tags, no illegal characters, no attribute minimization, namespaces follow proper syntax. That’s the reality and that will stay the reality: try validating 10 websites and see how many errors you will encounter… it’s a fairytale to think that in the future we will be looking at a 100% valid The basic well-formedness requirement for XML syntax sets the bar pretty low. And forced-conformation XHTML will never feel faster to the general public, never.(Oh by the way, are there anybody willing to make a graceful-degradable XHTML parser and/or parsing rule? This may be the only opportunity XHTML could shine.)“Why allow people to write broken code…”.Who says you, me, we are the ones that may allow or disallow?You can disallow whatever you want but it will always be here lots of people start writing websites whithout even knowing what validation means ans lots and lots of webdeveloper-websites are written in non-valid code. Just stick with HTML we need reliability. “You can’t show me what you’ve downloaded yet because there’s still 1% of the XHTML file stuck somewhere in the network tube and not yet received?” See, it will be very annoying when one is using a unstable connection.So at the end, those “no graceful degradation allowed” wonderland is never acceptable to the real world. I’ve experienced it once before and it doesn’t feel good.
The only browser which offers users the choice of fixing up broken XHTML is Opera, but it does so in the stupidest way possible by re-parsing the broken XML as text/html. HTML’s silent behavior is doubtlessly inferior to XML despite HTML5’s slight improvement over it’s predecessor by standardizing that wrong behavior so it’s at least wrong consistently.That said, the only browser which notifies users of broken pages regardless of serialization is Konqueror. I would certainly hope that UA’s fail loudly rather than silently guessing at the correct interpretation of an ambiguously broken datastructure containing possibly critical data.
I’m fine with that so long as there’s a more extensible long-term solution. HTML5 solves problems by simply statically dictating both semantics and behavior in a global namespace while disallowing extensibility. I’m working on a proxy of my own using Python’s LXML and HTTP libs since it gives easy access to libxml2 and several other parsers rather than pure regex matching as unfortunately Privoxy seems the best/only option available at the moment.In the future the most important step towards fixing markup will be implementation of XBL2. I use Privoxy extensively to modify behavior because there isn’t a browser around that gives me the control I want (greasemonkey gets you half way there but no control over parsing/pre-processing).
0 kommentar(er)
