W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: XHTML vs. WYSIWYG vs. Whatever?

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:54:21 -0800
To: "WAI Interest Group \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003c01c08323$2aae8bb0$0100a8c0@aries>
Kynn wrote:
"The benefits of XHTML can be gained by going to XML -or- by sticking
with HTML; XHTML just adds an unnecessary level of complication to
-both-, and doesn't produce any tangible benefits by virtue of being
XHTML."

Um, no. XHTML Strict *removes* unnecessary elements and attributes,
*simplifying* HTML and enforcing the separation of structure and
presentation (one giant benefit). And it has the added virtue of being valid
XML.

In fact, it's just plain HTML. It is the dreaded X that makes it sound
scary.

Close all non-empty elements [good practice anyway]. Add " /" to the end of
empty elements [easy]. Enclose all attribute values in double quotes [good
practice anyway]. Don't use minimized attributes (e.g. use checked="checked"
instead of checked) [easy]. Use lower case element and attribute names
[easy - and many already do this anyway]. Now follow the rules of HTML 4.01
[the hard part, but then that's just as true of HTML 4.01, obviously].

That's all there is to it. And if you're teaching HTML, you can just teach
XHTML and you don't even have to explain the above. Just teach  <br />
where you might have taught  <br>  and  selected="selected"  where you might
have taught  selected.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the benefits of XHTML can be gained
by sticking with HTML.

XHTML *IS* HTML, so you *are* sticking with HTML. You're just doing it
properly.

Charles F. Munat
Received on Saturday, 20 January 2001 15:47:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT