Originally posted by TheSpeedoBeast
So it sounds like xhtml 1.1 strict is the best way to go? There is no such thing as XHTML 1.1 Strict. There is XHTML 1.1, and there is XHTML 1.0 Strict (there are also other flavors of XHTML 1.0, see below). But there is no XHTML 1.1 Strict. XHTML 1.1 is mostly the same as what XHTML 1.0 Strict was.
Sorry, but what is the difference between xhtml and xml? The spelling? Or are they 2 completely different languages? XHTML is an XML "application" (now whether that means application like OpenOffice is an application, or application like applying something, I'm not sure). XML is a general markup language (I first thought of it as HTML where you can invent your own tags).
I now like to call old-style HTML "tag soup". You can improperly nest tags (<b><i>text</b></i>), you can open tags without closing them (<p>), you can generally make a complete mess of your web page's structure. You can also use the <font> tag; don't get me started on how that one violates separation between data and presentation, and brings along with it browser-cache problems when you decide to change a font!
All XML must be well-formed (so no improperly nested tags, no <p> without a matching </p>, no nesting a block-level element within an inline element., etc.). Some XML documents (e.g. XHTML documents) reference a document type definition (DTD, which tells what's legal), or they reference some other schema definition language document (XSD for example). These external documents give information on which tags are permitted to be nested inside which other tags; they give the schema for the XML application you're looking at.
Browsers have a hardcoded way to structure most XHTML (1.0 transitional/strict, and 1.1) markup (everything other than <div>s and <span>s) Other XML document types must use CSS or XSL (?) to tell the browser how to display every bit of their elements.
Originally posted by bradfordgd
I'm not sure about xhtml, but one difference between XML and html is that html is strictly about presentation of data where XML provides meaning to the data. Sort of, but not really. HTML is about presentation (how to display something) and data (what that something is). XHTML 1.0 deprecated most of the presentation tags and attributes in HTML, but the XHTML 1.0 Transitional doctype still allows them in a conforming document. XHTML 1.0 Strict does not allow them. (There is also XHTML 1.0 Frameset, for creating documents with frames -- the frame source documents are generally XHTML 1.0 Transitional or Strict themselves).
XHTML 1.1 removes all elements that were deprecated in all XHTML 1.0 incarnations, so it's a lot like 1.0 Strict. It also adds some new markup for "ruby" elements (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/).
You would use a seperate style sheet for the presentation of the XML data. You can also use a separate stylesheet for HTML if you want. But since <font> and friends are valid in conforming HTML 4.0 and 4.01 documents, nobody usually used them (even when they provided maintenance advantages).
XML is a subset of SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language). I don't know, but I'm fairly sure SGML is separate from XML. I'm almost positive that HTML 4 is valid SGML, even in "tag soup" mode, so I'm wondering how a markup language that can allow that tag soup (SGML) can be subset-ted into a markup language that does not (XML). But maybe it can, I won't say for sure.
Originally posted by Strogian
How about making one file, and then pass it through something to output HTML/XHTML or whatever you want? I'm not entirely sure that's possible (if by "HTML" you mean "tag soup"), or at all desireable (if you want "tag soup" at all -- why would you?). When you can take a "good" HTML document (a non-tag soup one), change the doctype, and make it a valid XHTML 1.0 document (usually at Transitional, but sometimes at Strict or XHTML 1.1), it really removes any need for a tool that would do that. Otherwise, there's always HTML Tidy (from the W3C), to turn tag soup into valid XHTML.
I want to be compatible with netscape4 still! Why? Seriously, who still uses that old pile? If there are still people, they are the ones that the Web Standards Project people are trying to get to upgrade. Move on yourself, for goodness' sake! ;) If everybody moves on, so will these few stragglers. Eventually.