[thelist] XHTML overrated (was: CSS, Netscape, .class oddity?)

snowboom2 at mindspring.com snowboom2 at mindspring.com
Sun Jul 23 23:54:21 CDT 2000


> This may be a stupid question, but will portable devices, with
custom-designed
> browsers, bother supporting HTML? Initially, their content may be defined
with
> XML (if I understand XML correctly) since they're offering completely
custom
> solutions, but you can't rule out the fact that they may then be able to
access
> the Web in the future too, right?

This is a messy arena right now...

The following answer is my opinion, based on various conversations and
readings. If there are questions I will happily track down where I
heard/read something. Who knows where it will go, but from what I can tell
there is a mixture of devices/protocols/directions. As far as mobile phones
go the w3c is pushing xhtml right now, while some deep pockets are pushing
wap, and other people are pushing various other things. I personally think
html is a bit bloated for your average mobile phone, but by next year your
average mobile phone may not look anything like the one I have today. There
is no doubt that xhtml will be important, but on which devices and to what
extent is a bit in the air at this point. I belive you could make a fairly
small working site using proper xhtml for phone use however.

There are too many html pages to expect any device that claims to access the
web as a whole (like webtv, etc) to not support html. That just wouldn't
make good business sense. Mobile phones are well suited to directed
application type sites (like you find on wap phones) and because of that
they may go more in that direction. I want to get the weather, directions,
and information via my mobile phone, not surf my friend's personal web site.
Then again, there may be enough demand for html reading phones... who knows
:-)

> And this custom-built XML browser could happily read an XHTML site? And
your
> everyday browsers would happily read it too?

xhtml is basically html as far as the browser is concerned at this point.

> Why wait until you start spotting strange browser strings in your logs,
when you
> can write XHTML now. Is it that difficult? (not rhetorical - serious
question)

No, it's super easy. I was brought up writing good clean code back in the
early days... basically I add slashes to the ends of single tags... not a
big deal at all.

> I already code in lower case. I make every effort to close tags, and I now
> instinctively type <br /> instead of <br>. Apart from doing this with IMG
and
> other similar tags, what else is there to do in the march towards writing
"real"
> XHTML?

Not much...

> Is the difficult part having to drop non-standard code tweaks that are
otherwise
> nice to have around?

The difficult part is really only difficult for people who simply never
learned how to write proper html (or who refused to do so) and who may have
a hard time changing coding styles.

> On a completely different subject, is there a standards compliant
replacement
> for <nobr>? I like it, and put up with CFStudio warning me that I
shouldn't be
> using it.

Not sure... I've never used that tag actually. Go figure :-)

By the way, I belive tonight is the first time I have posted to the list,
since others generally beat me to answer questions. I have been on the list
for a few months but I'll write a quick intro now:

I'm a 24yr old web designer in Atlanta, GA. I work for an internet startup
as the web designer (of course) and have been working with html since about
93. I graduated in May 99 with a bfa in graphic design and political
science, with a minor in sociology tossed in there for good luck. I have
been freelancing off and on for about 3 to 5 years and taught various html
and web design workshops while still in school for students and university
faculty. I have strong interests in usability and good clean design. That's
me in a nutshell. Any questions? Feel free to ask me offlist at
len at lenpowell.com.

-len





More information about the thelist mailing list