XHTML vs. HTML4

I was asked today about tag helpers automatically outputting in XHTML
and if
there was a setting to make them not do this. The reason? The web
developer
prefers HTML4 vs XHTML. So, is there a Rails setting for this or would
he
have to override every method? I believe that the browser will parse it
no
matter what, but he wants it to be “100% compliant”


Appreciated my help?
Reccommend me on Working With Rails
http://workingwithrails.com/person/11030-ryan-bigg

On 19 May 2008, at 06:52, Ryan B. (Radar) wrote:

I was asked today about tag helpers automatically outputting in
XHTML and if there was a setting to make them not do this. The
reason? The web developer prefers HTML4 vs XHTML. So, is there a
Rails setting for this or would he have to override every method? I
believe that the browser will parse it no matter what, but he wants
it to be “100% compliant”

http://agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/html4ify

Installing this plugin will make all tags default to the non-closed
tags HTML4 uses. Although I’d like to know why a web developer would
ever prefer HTML4 over XHTML, developers usually prefer a clearly
structured and well defined set of rules instead of something where
rules are so forgiving one might wonder if it can still be called a
set of rules.

Best regards

Peter De Berdt

Some people prefer ugliness to beauty.

Many kudos.

On 19 May 2008, at 11:24, Rimantas L. wrote:

produce/manipulate your code.
Well, some of our applications are scraped by other (desktop)
applications. Those applications benefit from the XML notation, since
they can just run the webpage through the XML parser and run over the
nodes they need. These are older apps, that either don’t have an REST-
based API in place or where the third party development team had no
experience with WebServices (they exist, believe me).

I myself prefer HTML 4.01 Strict - it is as strict as xhtml and does
not
rely on any bugs. True, HTML has more flexible syntax if you ever
need that
(e.g. to shave off a couple of bytes), but you are still free to
close all your
LIs and Ps.

I don’t care how a browser interprets it tbh, I know not sending it
with the correct headers makes browsers interpret it just like HTML. I
prefer having the doctype keep me (and our development team) in line.
We’re protecting ourselves against… well… ourselves actually. We
all know the problems that arise in a team about how to name
variables. How to name variables: titleCase or under_scored or …
JavaScript code usually names them one way, Ruby code uses another
convention, …
Using XHTML forces the team to adhere to the conventions, there is no
choice. It keeps the views pretty uniform, no matter who implemented
that section.

That said, everyone nowadays can basically use whatever they prefer. A
real choice will only have to be made when HTML5 and XHTML2 are
finalized and implemented in all browsers, since they are focussing on
totally different issues.

The fact that Rails defaults to XHTML would not bother me much if
there
was an easy way to configure it to use HTML mode, alas…

There is, use the plugin I posted in an earlier message and everything
is HTML4 compliant, unless I’m missing something?

Best regards

Peter De Berdt

<…>

Although I’d like to know why a web developer would ever prefer
HTML4 over XHTML, developers usually prefer a clearly structured and well
defined set of rules instead of something where rules are so forgiving one
might wonder if it can still be called a set of rules.

Well, that may be because XHTML is HTML4, but just presented in XML;
that HTML is supported in IE while XHTML is not, and that XHTML does
not give any real advantages unless you are using some XML tools to
produce/manipulate your code.

That, and the fact that XHTML sent as text/html works in browsers
only because they did not bother to implement SGML properly.
Otherwise every
would be rendered as
> and so on.
Basically anyone using XHTML with text/html MIME type relies on
the bug in browsers (and markup will be parsed by the html parser even
in
browsers supporting XHTML).
Sending it with proper MIME brings another set of issues to be aware of,
not least being that IE (including IE8) does not support it.

I myself prefer HTML 4.01 Strict - it is as strict as xhtml and does not
rely on any bugs. True, HTML has more flexible syntax if you ever need
that
(e.g. to shave off a couple of bytes), but you are still free to close
all your
LIs and Ps.

The fact that Rails defaults to XHTML would not bother me much if there
was an easy way to configure it to use HTML mode, alas…

Regards,
Rimantas

http://rimantas.com/

Well, some of our applications are scraped by other (desktop) applications.
Those applications benefit from the XML notation, since they can just run
the webpage through the XML parser and run over the nodes they need.

Uhm, they can just run, or do they just run webpages through XML parser?
Or is it regexp engine? :slight_smile:
The reason I am asking, that too many pages with XHTML doctype are, in
fact
broken, and would end up with ‘yellow screen of death’ if were parsed by
xhtml engine in browser, not the forgiving html engine.
If you are using xml tools to process your xhtml pages, then congrats,
you do have high quality here.

<…>

Using XHTML forces the team to adhere to the conventions, there is no
choice. It keeps the views pretty uniform, no matter who implemented that
section.

Well, it is sure the matter of preferences. Keeping tags lowercase and
to close
paragraphs is not that difficult in HTML either :slight_smile:

That said, everyone nowadays can basically use whatever they prefer. A real
choice will only have to be made when HTML5 and XHTML2 are finalized and
implemented in all browsers, since they are focussing on totally different
issues.

My bet is on HTML5.

The fact that Rails defaults to XHTML would not bother me much if there
was an easy way to configure it to use HTML mode, alas…

There is, use the plugin I posted in an earlier message and everything is
HTML4 compliant, unless I’m missing something?

Well, not. I’d just prefer having one line in config vs. plugin.
Anyway, this is not something to loose sleep over.

Regards,
Rimantas

http://rimantas.com/

XML parsers will go through a HTML4 doc, inevitably get to a tag like

and then look for a matching tag. Of course, there isn’t going to be
one. This is where XHTML comes in with the handy / at the end of tags, such
as
, so XML parsers won’t look for a

I understand that. But I wonder, what happens when said XML parser runs
onto
some in paga JavaSrcipt not included in CDATA and sees something like
“if (x < y)”.
Or it comes across a little © or ™ what happens then?
Pages like this will appear just fine in browsers (if served with
text/html) thanks
to the forgiving html parser engine, but XML parser should not be that
forgiving.
That’s why I’d go wit hpricot, no matter what doctype says. Well, with
possible
exception when XHTML is produced with XML tools too (there is an
opinion, that
one should never write XML by hand).

Regards,
Rimantas

http://rimantas.com/

Rimantas,

XML parsers will go through a HTML4 doc, inevitably get to a tag like


and then look for a matching tag. Of course, there isn’t going to
be
one. This is where XHTML comes in with the handy / at the end of tags,
such
as
, so XML parsers won’t look for a

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs