Re: Language settings meta tag and doctype

"Borek" <m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:18:27 +0100, Timmermans
steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Ok, thanks for the info on XHTML, the browser tip and the feedback on my
page.

SNIP

Your page validates as it is - as we say in Poland "better is enemy of
good". Your coding is OK and improving it doesn't make SEO sense (even
if I am against using tables for formatting )

At one point I tried to use CSS to do the trick, and I came close as well,
but there were a few things I could not figure out even after searching
weeks on the internet for the resources needed to complete the job. It
turned out to be for players in a different league and I took a humble step
back.

Steven

I will seriously consider the option to revert back to HTML.

You say you don't see any advantages in XHTML. I remember when I went from
HTML to XHTML that I knocked 14 or 15KB off my page, even though I had to
add those extra typicall XHTML stuff to add in those IMG and BR tags. It
was kinda a rerun from the effect the introduction of CSS had on the weight
of my pages.

So any advantage? Weightloss would be one.

Steven

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Thanks Borek,

This would mean my pages are no good at all then? Can I minimize the
damage somehow or do I need to fall back on HTML, perhaps I can move
on to... what?

I (again) recommend to just replace the DOCTYPE to HTML 4.01 strict. And
fix the things like <br /> and <img ... /> where needed. It's way easier.
Like I said, XHTML has no advantages I can think off (other then more
strictness, which browsers don't follow anyway afaik).

Also, you only mention IE, is this a problem that would excist in all
browsers?

AFAIK, only IE, and hence you have to do sniffing and serve out the right
Content-Type. It can be done, but why all the hassle? (See the link I
posted earlier).

And how do searchengines react to this? The appear to be able to read
my pages without a problem. Can I assume (and I will keep this
simple, but I know it is not) that searchengines by default discard
the bulk of all code between '<' and '>' so they are able index the
content?

SEs are probably fine. But because everything looks fine on the outside is
not a reason to switch to XHTML. XHTML is halfway between HTML and XML and
relies on browsers not being strict when it comes to handling HTML, which
shouldn't be supported, also since in parsing XML this is *not* right
according to the specs.

How worried should I be? Why is XHTML still out there if the language
is incompatible with most browsers?

Why are so many things still out there while clearly badly designed?

Why XHTML is used often is just because most people don't understand the
ins and outs, and just use it because it looks newer compared to HTML
4.01. If you ask why they use XHTML they don't have a good answer, and are
not aware of the disadvantages.

Bottomline is that for most uses XHTML adds nothing, and most of the time
is used wrongly, for the wrong purposes.

I used (maybe still have one or two pages) XHTML because I did knew the
advantages, but I didn't knew all disadvantages at that time :-) Hence, I
am now using HTML 4.01 strict.

--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
NEW ----> Textpad reference card (pdf): http://johnbokma.com/textpad/

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

I will seriously consider the option to revert back to HTML.

You say you don't see any advantages in XHTML. I remember when I went
from HTML to XHTML that I knocked 14 or 15KB off my page, even though
I had to add those extra typicall XHTML stuff to add in those IMG and
BR tags. It was kinda a rerun from the effect the introduction of CSS
had on the weight of my pages.

So any advantage? Weightloss would be one.

XHTML is extremely close to HTML 4.01. I guess that just changing the
DOCTYPE and fixing the funny space/> thingy for meta, img, br (which you
normally *shouldn't* use), etc. will give you HTML 4.01.

As for the table stuff, it's possible to do it with div + CSS (quick
glance), ask in alt.html for advice/help.

For example, the Deelstaten could be marked up as:


<h2>Deelstaten</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="....">Johor</a></li>
<li><a href="....">Kedah</a></li>
:
<li><a href="....">Terengganu</a></li>
</ul>

Much more compact then it currently is, with the added benefit of the h2
(or h3) and that a list of links is marked up as just that: a list of
links.

(You make the li having the grey background, and either let the white
background "leak" under it, or use a white solid 1px border at the bottom,
and of course you remove the * in front, etc.)

If you want to hire someone, I recommend Els (http://locusoptimus.com/ ).
She somehow loves to work with CSS :-D. ( I don't like things that
requires now and then hacks/filters, etc. before it looks everywhere the
same)

--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
NEW ----> Textpad reference card (pdf): http://johnbokma.com/textpad/