7 ms·

Valid pure HTML 4.01 (1) made in 2025 counts? I don’t thing it’s about luddites as website mentioned. Many professions have tools suggesting that person have e

Valid pure HTML 4.01 (1) made in 2025 counts? I don’t thing it’s about luddites as website mentioned. Many professions have tools suggesting that person have extensive experience and in terms of web development, XHTML 1.0 or old standards of HTML are such. 1. https://www.tirreno.com https://www.tirreno.com

throwaway150 9mo ago
It does not? HTML 4.01 is not XML. So not XHTML. What's the confusion?
- reconnecting 9mo ago
  Both technologies are from the same period and share same validation culture from W3.
  - jraph 9mo ago
    > Both technologies are from the same period Not really, XHTML is as current as HTML 5. XHTML 1.0 is older and is indeed (more or less?) the XML variant of HTML 4.01.
    - reconnecting 9mo ago
      How so? HTML 4.01 is from 1999, XHTML 1.0 from 2000. XHTML club mentioned valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional), not general XHTML.
jraph 9mo ago
The XML part of XHTML is an important feature which HTML 4.01 doesn't have tough. Writing valid HTML should be a bare minimum (I know it isn't!).
- reconnecting 9mo ago
  It is not “your HTML”, it’s HTML 4.01 from 1999, when XHTML 1.0 is from 2000. The common is the origins of validations that comes from W3 validator (1). Same badges, same limits. 1. https://validator.w3.org/ https://validator.w3.org/
  - jraph 9mo ago
    Sorry, I edited my reply in the meantime and I probably broke your citation. but what you are describing is XHTML 1.0, not XHTML in general. HTML5 has its XHTML variant too, sometimes called XHTML 5.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - reconnecting 9mo ago
      Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) is requirements of XHTML club, thus my comparison with HTML 4.01
      - jraph 9mo ago
        > Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) is requirements of XHTML club Where do you see this? I see that they do use XHTML 1.0 Strict but I don't see this requirement written. Brad, we need your clarification here, it's critical, we need you to tell us which one of us is wrong! :-)
        reconnecting 9mo ago
        Thank you for asking. XHTML Members(1): Current websites that are valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) Back to tirreno website, it is a pure transitional HTML 4.01 without JS or CSS, thus more or less same challenges to make it W3 valid (2) in our days. Have a look. 1. https://xhtml.club/members.html https://xhtml.club/members.html 2. https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https://www.tirreno.com/&ss=1&group=1 https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https://www.tirreno.com/&...

throwaway150 9mo ago

It does not? HTML 4.01 is not XML. So not XHTML. What's the confusion?

reconnecting 9mo ago
Both technologies are from the same period and share same validation culture from W3.
- jraph 9mo ago
  > Both technologies are from the same period Not really, XHTML is as current as HTML 5. XHTML 1.0 is older and is indeed (more or less?) the XML variant of HTML 4.01.
  - reconnecting 9mo ago
    How so? HTML 4.01 is from 1999, XHTML 1.0 from 2000. XHTML club mentioned valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional), not general XHTML.

jraph 9mo ago

The XML part of XHTML is an important feature which HTML 4.01 doesn't have tough. Writing valid HTML should be a bare minimum (I know it isn't!).

reconnecting 9mo ago
It is not “your HTML”, it’s HTML 4.01 from 1999, when XHTML 1.0 is from 2000. The common is the origins of validations that comes from W3 validator (1). Same badges, same limits. 1. https://validator.w3.org/ https://validator.w3.org/
- jraph 9mo ago
  Sorry, I edited my reply in the meantime and I probably broke your citation. but what you are describing is XHTML 1.0, not XHTML in general. HTML5 has its XHTML variant too, sometimes called XHTML 5.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - reconnecting 9mo ago
    Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) is requirements of XHTML club, thus my comparison with HTML 4.01
    - jraph 9mo ago
      > Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) is requirements of XHTML club Where do you see this? I see that they do use XHTML 1.0 Strict but I don't see this requirement written. Brad, we need your clarification here, it's critical, we need you to tell us which one of us is wrong! :-)
      - reconnecting 9mo ago
        Thank you for asking. XHTML Members(1): Current websites that are valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) Back to tirreno website, it is a pure transitional HTML 4.01 without JS or CSS, thus more or less same challenges to make it W3 valid (2) in our days. Have a look. 1. https://xhtml.club/members.html https://xhtml.club/members.html 2. https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https://www.tirreno.com/&ss=1&group=1 https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https://www.tirreno.com/&...