Kevin
Tue Feb 07 16:46:34 CST 2006
> True enough. So tell me again (bearing in mind that IIS6 doesn't serve
> XHTML pages correctly) what are the benefits to coding now with XHTML
> (other than the academic ones)? 8)
I wouldn't call those reasons "academic." To many companies, they add up to
lots of saved bucks, in terms of man-hours spent converting data, and/or
updating pages.
I was simply saying that it is not true to say that the original statement
lacked any validity. I was not recommending that everyone should switch to
XHTML. And I think you missed the point of the marketing group the OP spoke
of. Depending upon their reasons, they may well have been spot on in their
requirement. I don't believe they were saying that HTML "no longer cuts it"
for all purposes, but for their requirements. Of course, one might interpret
that hearsay characterization on the part of the OP in any of several ways.
Perhaps we heard it differently, and only the OP knows what they really
said.
At any rate, they are the client, and the client gets what the client wants,
unless the vendor is certain of some logical reason for refuting what the
client wants, and is able to convince the client of the logic of his/her
argument. And, of course, the rewrite means more money to the vendor!
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
We got a sick zebra a hat,
you ultimate tuna.
"Murray" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:eNKbUUBLGHA.2912@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Try doing that with HTML!
>
> True enough. So tell me again (bearing in mind that IIS6 doesn't serve
> XHTML pages correctly) what are the benefits to coding now with XHTML
> (other than the academic ones)? 8)
>
> --
> Murray
> --------------
> MVP FrontPage
>
>
> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
> news:eP1GWwALGHA.3052@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> When XHTML 2 is finalized, all current XHTML sites will have to be
>>> rebuilt anyhow.
>>
>> Not at all. Remember, we're talking about XML here. First, you have a
>> mandatory DTD, and the browsers can and will be able to use the DTDs.
>> Second, you have the ability to automatically transform from one format
>> (such as XHTML 1 to XHTML 2) using XSLT. Try doing that with HTML!
>>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> .Net Developer
>> We got a sick zebra a hat,
>> you ultimate tuna.
>>
>>
>> "Murray" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
>> news:O%23Fj8pALGHA.2668@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>I disagree. XHTML is going to change dramatically in the next several
>>>years. The only advantage to using it now is that you will train
>>>yourself to think about something beyond HTML.
>>>
>>> When XHTML 2 is finalized, all current XHTML sites will have to be
>>> rebuilt anyhow.
>>>
>>> Whatever - it's up to you. But the marketing company who gave you the
>>> information that HTML doesn't cut it anymore is nuts.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Murray
>>> --------------
>>> MVP FrontPage
>>>
>>>
>>> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OQvptcALGHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> 1- Is there any validity to their statement?
>>>>>
>>>>> As a general statement, no. If the company has specific plans to
>>>>> integrate XML/XSLT into their site, then yes, it does, but aside from
>>>>> that specific need, this marketing company has no clue. HTML4.01 will
>>>>> continue to be the predominant type of HTML used on the web for many
>>>>> years yet.
>>>>
>>>> I have to take issue with some of this. While HTML 4.01 will continue
>>>> to be the predominant type of HTML *on* the web for many years yet, it
>>>> will not be the predominant type of HTML used for new development in a
>>>> couple of years.
>>>>
>>>> XHTML has a number of qualities that make it far superior to HTML, and
>>>> which will eventually lead to the demise of traditional HTML on the
>>>> web.
>>>>
>>>> First, it is XML. There are any number of implications that can be
>>>> drawn from this simple fact. XML is, by definition, "eXtensible." XHTML
>>>> is also eXtensible, which is not exactly the case with HTML. Second,
>>>> because it is XML, it is strict. The rules for creating and/or parsing
>>>> XHTML are and will continue to be simple. Third, because it is XML, it
>>>> can easily be transformed using XSL from and into virtually *any* other
>>>> data format. This is a huge plus, as one of the biggest difficulties
>>>> that many companies on the Internet face is translating their data from
>>>> an in-house format, such as Word documents, database data, text files,
>>>> etc. XHTML can be generated automatically from such formats, and
>>>> transformed into such formats.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the next generation of Microsoft Office. All Office documents
>>>> will be embracing an XML format. See
>>>>
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/developers/fileoverview.mspx
>>>> for more detailed information. To quote the opening paragraph of this
>>>> page, "Distinct from the binary-based file format that has been a
>>>> mainstay of past Microsoft Office releases, the new Office XML Formats
>>>> are compact, robust file formats that enable better data integration
>>>> between documents and back-end systems. An open, royalty-free file
>>>> format specification maximizes interoperability in a heterogeneous
>>>> environment, and enables any technology provider to integrate Microsoft
>>>> Office documents into their solutions."
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft SQL Server has been embracing data in XML format for aseveral
>>>> years now, and SQL Server 2005 has much built-in support for XML.
>>>> Visual Studio.Net 2005 is set by default to use XHTML for developing
>>>> ASP.Net 2.0 applications.
>>>>
>>>> And this is not just happening at Microsoft. XML is fully
>>>> interoperable, and is being embraced worldwide for all sorts of things.
>>>> Recently I began researching the emerging standards for Geospatial
>>>> information systems, at the Open Geospatial Consortium web site
>>>> (
http://www.opengeospatial.org/). GML (Geography Markup Language) is a
>>>> flavor of XML for describing geographic data. The W3C
>>>> (
http://www.w3.org/) is constantly adding new flavors of XML to their
>>>> list of standards.
>>>>
>>>> So, while it may or may not be necessary for a company to convert
>>>> their web site to XHTML, depending upon the current and anticipated
>>>> requirements, in some cases it is certainly a good idea. Therefore,
>>>> there may indeed be some validity to this marketing form's statement.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> HTH,
>>>>
>>>> Kevin Spencer
>>>> Microsoft MVP
>>>> .Net Developer
>>>> We got a sick zebra a hat,
>>>> you ultimate tuna.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Murray" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%234qck2$KGHA.3052@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> 1- Is there any validity to their statement?
>>>>>
>>>>> As a general statement, no. If the company has specific plans to
>>>>> integrate XML/XSLT into their site, then yes, it does, but aside from
>>>>> that specific need, this marketing company has no clue. HTML4.01 will
>>>>> continue to be the predominant type of HTML used on the web for many
>>>>> years yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2- will FrontPage 2003 support XHTML? I don't see it as an option.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it will.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Murray
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> MVP FrontPage
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "gjb" <webknight2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uI%23dEr$KGHA.344@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>I have been maintaining a web site for several years now. I am
>>>>>>currently using FrontPage 2003. The company that owns the site hired a
>>>>>>marketing firm who has told my client the site needs to be redesign
>>>>>>using XHTML and HTML no longer cuts it.
>>>>>> So I have 2 questions to the group
>>>>>> 1- Is there any validity to their statement?
>>>>>> 2- will FrontPage 2003 support XHTML? I don't see it as an option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> g
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>