Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!feeder.erje.net!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <4598154.eZuQ2opgd6@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 23:39:04 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit Subject: Re: Super basic newbie question Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript References: <4f58cbd4$0$21489$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <5049dd4e-dcc9-4ea4-8ea1-633cb5f8ed0b@i16g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <4Uwh8GHjinWPFwBf@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> <4f5b170a$0$12497$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <6h6nl7p2ekpjoq90fotvrq909ifj0752lj@4ax.com> <4f5bddef$0$12486$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <2494667.doC6IZWQal@PointedEars.de> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 63 NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Mar 2012 23:39:06 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: e049e740.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=PHEB4?mDghR\9P[:DUn00Q4IUK Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >> > SAM wrote: >> >> Swifty a écrit : >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> doesn't it depend of the doctype ? >> >> > No, the quotes around attribute values have always been optional >> >> I didn't hear that about XHTML ... >> > Because it isn't true for (real) XHTML. But that language has been >> > dead on the Web since the turn of the century. The XHTML on the Web >> > today is just error-filled HTML. >> Obviously you are lacking experience in this field. > > Hardly. I fully embraced XHTML back around the turn of the century. It > just didn't pan out. You are wrong. By December 2011, "more than 40% of (scanned) web documents are either Valid HTML or XHTML" [1], which means that there are web documents that are Valid XHTML. >> XHTML has found its place as a useful markup language *at least* in >> Content Management Systems. > > When I say on the Web, I mean on the front end, where XHTML is all but > extinct. Have you noticed the emphasis on "at least"? And since when have Content Management Systems nothing to do with the frontend? There is also embedded SVG, MathML, … By December 2011, about 62% of all web documents are declared XHTML 1.0.[2] If 40% of web documents are Valid, that means (with even distribution) that 24% of all web documents are Valid XHTML 1.0. 24% is more than 0% (extinct). There is even an "XHTML syntax of HTML5" waiting to be standardized.[3] A person without at least a basic knowledge of XHTML would not be employed for long where I work. Yet you are essentially saying that XHTML would be unimportant on the Web by now. The statistical facts, my statement, and your statement are inconsistent; they cannot be all correct. As I can reasonably assume that the statistical data is correct, and I know without doubt that my statement about where I work is correct, your completely unfounded statement about XHTML must be wrong. You have a tendency to oversimplify, as much as the people whom you (often rightfully) criticize. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you try to restrain that tendency and stick to the available facts. PointedEars ___________ [1] [2] http://blog.powermapper.com/blog/post/HTML-vs-XHTML-Version- Statistics.aspx [3] -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16