There is no shortage on the
pages on the
internet that talk about
HTML vs.
XHTML. The vast majority
of these (in the first few pages of Google) seem to favor
XHTML. I don't really have an agenda, so I thought I would
post my thoughts on the topic.
I have stated on this blog that I use HTML 4.01
Transistional. I do so because it is easiest for me.
Some people argue that XHMTL is easier because there are set rules
and if you violate those rules, the documents will not
render. Is that a good thing? Perhaps my time in the
late 90's has made my mind work differently than newcomers to the
World Wide Web.
The browser wars were ugly. And I mean
literally ugly. If you wanted to do anything fancy, it
required lots of images or compromise. I learned early on
that it was ok that the spacing in IE on my PC was larger than IE
on the Mac. The fonts were all different sizes from browser
to browser and OS to OS. I learned that graceful fallback was
part of the web. Even now, dealnews.com looks "adequate" in
IE 6. I could make it look perfect. But, the declining
traffic from IE6 does not merit my time to fix the errors in IE
6.
So, when I start thinking about HTML vs. XHTML, I want the more
flexible of the two. I find syntax like nowrap='nowrap' very
annoying in XHTML. Especially since I can't say
nowrap='yeswrap' and it mean anything. nowrap=1 I could
handle. But, no, it has to be nowrap='nowrap'.
Geez.
Ok, ok, this is turning into an XHTML hate post. I don't want
to do that. There are some things about XHTML that I do
like. I like the self closing tags. My OCD (which I
have brought up before) has never liked having an open tag without
a closing tag. so, the <br /> format is appealing to me
in that sense. I love that XHTML elements should always be
lower case. I hate upper case HTML. It just reads
funny. Like
camel case function
names. Some folks on our content team used to use Adobe
PageMaker to write up deals. They would copy and paste the
HTML from there into our CMS. The output would be pretty
ugly.
So, I like parts of both. What is interesting to me is the
fact that the "big sites" on the internet don't seem concerned with
document types or validation.
|
Site
|
DocType
|
Validates
|
|
Google
|
None
|
No
|
|
Yahoo
|
HTML 4.01 Strict
|
No
|
|
Live.com (Microsoft)
|
XHTML 1.0 Transitional
|
No
|
|
MSN.com
|
XHTML 1.0 Strict
|
Yes
|
|
Facebook
|
XHTML 1.0 Strict
|
No
|
|
eBay
|
HTML 4.01 Transitional
|
No
|
|
YouTube
|
HTML 4.01 Transitional
|
No
|
|
Amazon.com
|
None
|
No
|
|
Wikipedia
|
XHTML 1.0 Strict
|
Yes
|
|
MySpace
|
XHTML 1.0 Transitional
|
No
|
So, of the 10 most popular sites on the internet (according to
Compete.com), two don't
include a document type in their front page at all. Only two
of the sites validate according to the W3C. MSN and Wikipedia
both validated on their front page with XHTML 1.0 Strict.
However, neither is sending a Content-Type of
application/xhtml+xml. According to
this page, that is a bad
thing. And the
search results page for XHTML on MSN.com did not
validate. Kudos to Wikipedia. Their
page on XHTML does validate. Interestingly, they switch
to XHTML 1.0 Transitional for that page.
So, is the internet broken? No. The most important
validation is that of your users. Can they use the
site? Does the site look right in their browser? Most
sites have much bigger navigation and content issues than they do
document structure.
So, my idea of validation is this: Does it render the
same (or damn near) in the browsers that cover 90% of the internet
users? If so, then your page validates. The only way to
check that is (most likely without SkyNet) the human eye.