3 ms·
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!).
by 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 agoIt 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 agoSorry, 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 agoValid 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 agoThank 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/&...
- jraph 9mo agoDamn, it seems you are right! Still not convinced with your proposal to extend the XHTML club to include valid HTML 4.01, not that I care much anyway :-)