5 ms·

What Beautiful HTML Code Looks Like

7 points by malte 17y ago

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
Interested that he's using explicit closed tags on eg <img /> which in html is not required. Perhaps "/" are pretty? This is the same as in HTML4. However, due to the widespread attempts to use XHTML1, there are a significant number of pages using the trailing slash. Because of this, the trailing slash syntax has been permitted on void elements in HTML in order to ease migration from XHTML1 to HTML5. ( http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_close_empty_elements_with_.2F.3E_or_.3E.3F http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_close_empty_element... )
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  Perhaps having well-formed XML is handy for, say, checking the markup.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    I anticipated that remark but didn't want to over comment, from that same link - to save me typing: If I’m careful with the syntax I use in my HTML document, can I process it with an XML parser? No, HTML and XML have many significant differences, particularly parsing requirements, and you cannot process one using tools designed for the other. However, since HTML5 is defined in terms of the DOM, in most cases there are both HTML and XHTML serializations available that can represent the same document. There are, however, a few differences explained later that make it impossible to represent some HTML documents accurately as XHTML and vice versa.
    - jamesbritt 17y ago
      Right; it's hard to be both HTML and XML, so you need to use the XHTML serialization of HTML5 if you want use XML (which is what the example document appears to be).
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        I'd heard of the idea of using XML forms (explicit self closing tags) in HTML5 to allow it to be parsed as XML, but only at the start of the week began writing my first HTML5 DTD pages. I'd put my weight behind XHTML2 winning but that sadly seems to look ever less likely. I'd assumed that if I kept my <img /> and <meta />, etc., void tags as is things would work fine .. it looks like they should. But, the whatwg who have many more people and spend many more hours on this tell me "it's not that simple, it won't work" I tend to have to take that on face value - I can't afford to write 40 pages using XHTML style void tags and then have an FF upgrade baulk because some nuance of HTML5 parsing spews at my tags. FWIW.
        jamesbritt 17y ago
        As far as I can tell you have a choice of using HTML or XHTML syntax. The "it won't work" thing refers to trying to create what is ostensibly an HTML document but using XML syntax. The kicker with going the XHTML path, though, is the expectation that the document will be served with a particular content-type header meant for XHTML/XML documents. This is no different than what's (supposedly) required for XHTML documents right now, yet very few people use the correct header (even people who chide others for not using XHTML).
KevBurnsJr 17y ago
I wouldn't call <ul class="col"> very semantic. At all. <ul class="people"> maybe.

7 points by malte 17y ago

Interested that he's using explicit closed tags on eg <img /> which in html is not required. Perhaps "/" are pretty? This is the same as in HTML4. However, due to the widespread attempts to use XHTML1, there are a significant number of pages using the trailing slash. Because of this, the trailing slash syntax has been permitted on void elements in HTML in order to ease migration from XHTML1 to HTML5. ( http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_close_empty_elements_with_.2F.3E_or_.3E.3F http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_close_empty_element... )

jamesbritt 17y ago
Perhaps having well-formed XML is handy for, say, checking the markup.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  I anticipated that remark but didn't want to over comment, from that same link - to save me typing: If I’m careful with the syntax I use in my HTML document, can I process it with an XML parser? No, HTML and XML have many significant differences, particularly parsing requirements, and you cannot process one using tools designed for the other. However, since HTML5 is defined in terms of the DOM, in most cases there are both HTML and XHTML serializations available that can represent the same document. There are, however, a few differences explained later that make it impossible to represent some HTML documents accurately as XHTML and vice versa.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    Right; it's hard to be both HTML and XML, so you need to use the XHTML serialization of HTML5 if you want use XML (which is what the example document appears to be).
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      I'd heard of the idea of using XML forms (explicit self closing tags) in HTML5 to allow it to be parsed as XML, but only at the start of the week began writing my first HTML5 DTD pages. I'd put my weight behind XHTML2 winning but that sadly seems to look ever less likely. I'd assumed that if I kept my <img /> and <meta />, etc., void tags as is things would work fine .. it looks like they should. But, the whatwg who have many more people and spend many more hours on this tell me "it's not that simple, it won't work" I tend to have to take that on face value - I can't afford to write 40 pages using XHTML style void tags and then have an FF upgrade baulk because some nuance of HTML5 parsing spews at my tags. FWIW.
      - jamesbritt 17y ago
        As far as I can tell you have a choice of using HTML or XHTML syntax. The "it won't work" thing refers to trying to create what is ostensibly an HTML document but using XML syntax. The kicker with going the XHTML path, though, is the expectation that the document will be served with a particular content-type header meant for XHTML/XML documents. This is no different than what's (supposedly) required for XHTML documents right now, yet very few people use the correct header (even people who chide others for not using XHTML).

KevBurnsJr 17y ago

I wouldn't call <ul class="col"> very semantic. At all. <ul class="people"> maybe.