http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Design/Web-Design/Standards/XHTML A listing of the most recently indexed works about Design and Web Design and Standards and XHTML in the field of technical communication. en-us Copyright (c) 2005-08 by the EServer. All rights reserved. tclib-editorial@eserver.org (TC Library Editorial Board) webmaster@eserver.org (Geoffrey Sauer) http://tc.eserver.org/images/newlogo.gif http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Design/Web-Design/Standards/XHTML http://tc.eserver.org/34762.html http://tc.eserver.org/34762.html This XHTML cheat sheet is excellent for XHTML coders. Along with many basic attributes, this two-page grid includes references that even experienced web professionals would find useful. Three types of elements are defined in this cheat sheet: block, inline and table elements. The miscellaneous section includes 22 additional elements. Each row contains the name, description and attributes of each of the elements available for use. http://tc.eserver.org/34737.html http://tc.eserver.org/34737.html When authoring document is HTML or XHTML, it is important to Add a Doctype declaration. The declaration must be exact (both in spelling and in case) to have the desired effect, which makes it sometimes difficult. To ease the work, below is a list of recommended declarations that you can use in your Web documents. http://tc.eserver.org/34149.html http://tc.eserver.org/34149.html Here's a dirty little secret: browsers aren't actually treating your XHTML as XML. Your validated, correctly DOCTYPE'd, completely standards compliant XHTML markup is being treated as if it were still HTML with a few weird slashes in places they don't belong (like <br /> and <img />). Why? The answer is MIME types. http://tc.eserver.org/32957.html http://tc.eserver.org/32957.html In one of my introductory articles I stated that I do not care much for validation, yet I use well-formed XHTML 1.0 Strict (no less) as my preferred standard and CSS for layout purposes. If so, why on earth would I claim not to care about, or ignore, validation? http://tc.eserver.org/32958.html http://tc.eserver.org/32958.html There’s way too much talk about CSS and XHTML and Standards and Accessibility and not enough talk about people. CSS and Standards Compliant Code are just tools — you have to know what to build with these tools. http://tc.eserver.org/32959.html http://tc.eserver.org/32959.html When I visit a website, especially if it’s the site of a competitor or a prospective client, I like viewing source and take a look at what’s under the hood. It’s one of my not-so-secret obsessions. And I am way too often absolutely disgusted by what I see. The web is overflowing with sites that use horribly invalid, broken, and inaccessible markup. http://tc.eserver.org/32500.html http://tc.eserver.org/32500.html The blockquote element is not allowed to have text or inline elements as direct descendants. Only block-level (and in HTML 4.01 Strict, script) elements are allowed unless you use a Transitional Doctype, in which case both block-level and inline elements are allowed. But there are plenty of sites that use a Strict Doctype and still have blockquote elements that contain inline elements. http://tc.eserver.org/30650.html http://tc.eserver.org/30650.html You may mistrust web standards because of bad experiences with buggy browsers. Or you might have converted a site from HTML to XHTML, only to discover that their layouts suddenly looked different in standards-compliant browsers. Don't give in to the dark side! Web standards are here to stay. http://tc.eserver.org/29983.html http://tc.eserver.org/29983.html But one of the lesser known differences between HTML and XHTML is that attributes within tags (such as the href attribute within a link <a> tag) must use 'entities' for special reserved characters. For example, within mark-up, & has a special meaning. Greater than and less than signs (> and <) also have a special meaning, as they are used to define tags. http://tc.eserver.org/29329.html http://tc.eserver.org/29329.html If you face a Web site redesign or need a head start on your development efforts, our free Dreamweaver MX XHTML and CSS2 template may come in handy. Download the template and see how XHTML and CSS2 can reduce coding time and increase site accessibility. http://tc.eserver.org/29327.html http://tc.eserver.org/29327.html As its name suggests, XHTML--which is considered the successor to HTML 4--is a combination of HTML and XML. By combining the power of XML and HTML, XHTML makes Web content more accessible to devices such as phones, handhelds, and televisions. XHTML 1.0 is broken up into what the W3C refers to as three flavors: Strict, Transitional, and Frameset. In this article, I focus on the two most useful, Strict and Transitional. http://tc.eserver.org/28348.html http://tc.eserver.org/28348.html This Recommendation defines a new XHTML document type that is based upon the module framework and modules defined in Modularization of XHTML [XHTMLMOD]. The purpose of this document type is to serve as the basis for future extended XHTML 'family' document types, and to provide a consistent, forward-looking document type cleanly separated from the deprecated, legacy functionality of HTML 4 [HTML4] that was brought forward into the XHTML 1.0 [XHTML1] document types. This document type is essentially a reformulation of XHTML 1.0 Strict using XHTML Modules. This means that many facilities available in other XHTML Family document types (e.g., XHTML Frames) are not available in this document type. These other facilities are available through modules defined in Modularization of XHTML, and document authors are free to define document types based upon XHTML 1.1 that use these facilities (see [XHTMLMOD] for information on creating new document types). http://tc.eserver.org/28347.html http://tc.eserver.org/28347.html This document is version 1.1 of XHTML Modularization, an abstract modularization of XHTML and implementations of the abstraction using XML Document Type Definitions (DTDs), and XML Schemas. This modularization provides a means for subsetting and extending XHTML, a feature needed for extending XHTML's reach onto emerging platforms. This specification is intended for use by language designers as they construct new XHTML Family Markup Languages. This specification does not define the semantics of elements and attributes, only how those elements and attributes are assembled into modules, and from those modules into markup languages. This second version of this specification includes several minor updates to provide clarifications and address errors found in the first version. It also provides an implementation using XML Schemas. http://tc.eserver.org/28241.html http://tc.eserver.org/28241.html The Lesser (or Badged) Standardista will include badges on their site to indicate which level of automated testing their site has passed, whereas the Greater (or Smug) Standardista frowns on the use of badges, and insists on double-checking every checkpoint manually. http://tc.eserver.org/27673.html http://tc.eserver.org/27673.html This is the first part of a two-part article describing a detailed methodology for migrating HTML files to the structure and flexibility of XHTML and/or XML. By using XHTML to add structure and separate content from presentation, you'll be better positioned for a move to XML. Even if you never move to XML, your XHTML files will be easier to create and maintain, and will be more accessible. http://tc.eserver.org/27639.html http://tc.eserver.org/27639.html This is the second part of a two-part article describing a detailed methodology for migrating HTML files to the structure and flexibility of XHTML and/or XML. http://tc.eserver.org/26650.html http://tc.eserver.org/26650.html Explores exactly what XHTML is, and how you can use it to start producing the next generation of Web pages. http://tc.eserver.org/25732.html http://tc.eserver.org/25732.html That the target attribute is not by default allowed in valid XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 1.0 Strict continues to be a source of frustration for designers. It simply doesn't have to be. http://tc.eserver.org/25469.html http://tc.eserver.org/25469.html As a fundamental part of the Web, hypertext linking has been the subject of repeated attempts at standardization beyond the basic format allowed in simple HTML. Such attempts can be characterized as efforts to balance machine processing ability with authoring convenience. The latest specification in this area, XHTML 2.0, just might have gotten it right. http://tc.eserver.org/21578.html http://tc.eserver.org/21578.html A collection of more than fifty online resources in the XHTML markup language. http://tc.eserver.org/19632.html http://tc.eserver.org/19632.html We’re going to be focusing entirely on the benefits of using XHTML and CSS to show you how to improve the readability of your code for search engine spiders, maintain a good content-to-code ratio without going beyond file-size and word-count limits, and how to use CSS to mimic common image effects. http://tc.eserver.org/18755.html http://tc.eserver.org/18755.html The benefits of transforming HTML from a stand-alone language into an XML version of itself aren't immediately apparent until you understand the inherent value of XML. Since the language syntax is so strict in XML, parsers (the software that reads and understands the code you write) are a lot easier to develop. Ultimately, it will allow browsers to become smaller, faster, and more stable. It also means your code will behave in a far more predictable way: Either something will work, or you will get an error. It will be a marked difference from the voodoo we experience across multiple browsers today. http://tc.eserver.org/14613.html http://tc.eserver.org/14613.html Douglas McLaughlin describes the history and features of XHTML, a reformulation of HTML 4.0 using XML syntax. http://tc.eserver.org/14642.html http://tc.eserver.org/14642.html McLaughlin explains the use of namespaces in XHTML. http://tc.eserver.org/14194.html http://tc.eserver.org/14194.html Lately, it seems like everyone is talking about migrating to web standards, like XHTML and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). What's the big deal about these standards? Why should web teams invest the effort to learn new coding techniques and convert all their legacy sites over to standards-compliant sites? Time and Money, that's why. http://tc.eserver.org/13671.html http://tc.eserver.org/13671.html The problem with XHTML 1.0 isn't a matter of strength, or of importance. XHTML is both strong and important--and not just for markup snobs and hardcore developers. It's not that XHTML 1.0 has a particularly high learning curve. It doesn't--in fact, it's quite easy to learn. And, it's not that XHTML 1.0 doesn't display in browsers both current and past. When written with awareness of cross-browser considerations--just as with HTML, it does. The problem lies in the fact that XHTML is, quite simply, misunderstood. http://tc.eserver.org/13502.html http://tc.eserver.org/13502.html Per HTML and XHTML standards, a DOCTYPE (short for “document type declaration”) informs the validator which version of (X)HTML you’re using, and must appear at the very top of every web page. DOCTYPEs are a key component of compliant web pages: your markup and CSS won’t validate without them. http://tc.eserver.org/10207.html http://tc.eserver.org/10207.html Current browsers are very forgiving; they quietly correct or gloss over many common HTML errors. This makes it easy for people to experience the joy of creating their own web pages with a minimum of frustration—if a page displays correctly, then it's “right.” Unfortunately, by hiding the need for structure that the web will require as it moves towards XHTML and XML, these forgiving browsers have helped create a world of structural HTML illiterates. As long as browsers continue to parse and display HTML that isn't well-formed or valid, we will never learn the right ways, and we will never get to a structural web.