Going back to html 4

In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
strict.

Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus. I have over
180 pages on my web site to convert. I am a bit disappointed, because when I
"upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
Apparently it was a bad idea. Comments, anyone?

The Bicycling Guitarist
www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/

"The Bicycling Guitarist" <Chris (AT) TheBicyclingGuitarist (DOT) net> writes:

In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
strict.

It took you that long? :-)

Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus.

I'd say it's more accurate to call it pointless. When it's served as text/html,
browsers parse it as HTML anyway, which not only eliminates the benefits of
XHTML (whatever those are...) but also causes problems and requires workarounds
that HTML would avoid.

I have over 180 pages on my web site to convert.

Have a look at HTML Tidy - if your code is valid to begin with, converting 180
pages shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

<http://tidy.sourceforge.net/>

I am a bit disappointed, because when I
"upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
Apparently it was a bad idea.

Following the latest trendy buzzword without actually analyzing its benefits
and/or pitfalls is usually a bad idea. Sometimes there really is some steak,
but more often than not you'll find nothing but sizzle.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:42:59 -0700 from The Bicycling Guitarist
<Chris (AT) TheBicyclingGuitarist (DOT) net>:

In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
strict.

Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus. I have over
180 pages on my web site to convert. I am a bit disappointed, because when I
"upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
Apparently it was a bad idea. Comments, anyone?

You've been reading this group for some time, and I hope you've paid
attention to threads other than the ones you started.

The experts (which I am not) have pretty consistently advised
*against* XHTML because it gives no real-world advantages.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote:

In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
strict.
[...]
Apparently it was a bad idea.

Yes.

Comments, anyone?

But if you already *have* XHTML 1.0 Strict, then keep it!
If you have XHTML 1.0 Transitional, you might consider to change
to "Strict".

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm> wrote

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:42:59 -0700 from The Bicycling Guitarist
Chris (AT) TheBicyclingGuitarist (DOT) net>:
In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix
c.
After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html
4
strict.

Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus. I have
over
180 pages on my web site to convert. I am a bit disappointed, because
when I
"upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
Apparently it was a bad idea. Comments, anyone?

You've been reading this group for some time, and I hope you've paid
attention to threads other than the ones you started.

Hi Stan and thanks for posting. I don't read every post, but I have learned

a lot from the questions asked and answered here. I think CIWA are the best
forums on the internet.

"Andreas Prilop" <Prilop2007 (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote:

In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix
c.
After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html
4
strict.
[...]
Apparently it was a bad idea.

Yes.

Comments, anyone?

But if you already *have* XHTML 1.0 Strict, then keep it!
If you have XHTML 1.0 Transitional, you might consider to change
to "Strict".

What? If it's a bad idea to go to xhtml, then I certainly don't want to keep
it. Over the years I have converted most of my transitional pages to strict.
It only takes a minute or so most pages to change to HTML 4.01 Strict. I'll
be there soon and will pay more attention before switching next time.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote:

If it's a bad idea to go to xhtml, then I certainly don't want to keep it.

"To go" is a bad idea. But if you have already gone, it's pointless
to go again (back).

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

The Bicycling Guitarist wrote:

In 2003 I "upgraded" the code on all my web pages to xhtml 1.0 appendix c.
After four years, I am really thinking of changing the code back to html 4
strict.

Many people say that xhtml served as content type html is bogus. I have over
180 pages on my web site to convert. I am a bit disappointed, because when I
"upgraded" to xhtml I thought I was preparing my site for the future.
Apparently it was a bad idea. Comments, anyone?

Personally I stick to html 4 because it is the most compatible and the
least hassle to get it to work properly across different browsers.

--
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.comp.eonworks.com _Linux SysAdmin and Webmaster scripts_