 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
tree
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 29th, 2003 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2003 03:25 am |
|
I'm just starting to change over to XHTML, basicly due to learing that it will make the pages more accessable to different devices like small handhelds (correct me if I'm wrong). While for the most part the change over seems like a breeze, I've notice while doing so, things that were not written so well (syntax wise) in the css files, really messed up the displays though they worked fine in the same page when it was HTML. I guess I got spoiled with all the things HTML (sloopy) let you get away with. I thought it wouldn't matter with the css, if I just did the XHTML page, I could do the css (correctly) later. Just me and possibly something happen with one of my css files, or is this a common issue? If so, what other applications are effected differently.... as in they work fine in conjunction with HTML but differently in a XHTML page?
Adding on here... seems no one is really talking much about XHTML, but now I've finally gone and done it, my home page is done in XHTML1.1 While I still have a ways to go to get it the way I want it- hey if anyone is up to a challenge, you gotta try this stuff!!! I mean if your board stiff, try getting one of your pages XHTML1.1 error free in the w3c validator- THEN, try going back to HTML!! it's like fixing your leaky sink after engineering the hydrolics for a spacecraft!
Last edited on Sat May 24th, 2003 03:02 am by tree
|
tree
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 29th, 2003 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2003 04:26 am |
|
Okay, this is still a quite subject so I see by the other posts here (?). My first post on this subject was around a month ago. This of course was prior to the last google crawl got ahold of my XHTML1.1 Good news, this stuff is spider food!!!!! While it allows yukky things like tables (not real fond of em so I stay away from em), basicly everything is in your css other that what the spiders are after- CONTENT! All fonts, layers (thats css for tables kids) colors, and even at least on my index.xhtml page, all images, on the css. This leaves what? Page content- almost pure spider food without the distraction of font this, align that, color this, size that, in your html (oops thats xhtml now). In place of that is a lot of DIV's and p's with class.
Okay so if you go to my site at http://www.tree21.com there is something I still need to work on now that I have the codes right- the CONTENT LOL :-), okay, and the rest of the site  This, I've little doubt likely attributed to not getting very far with my 'primary target' but I am a busy man here, just got my first "XHTML1.1+MathML2.0" Validated (whew!) Which is online at a new domain I just obtained. Not giving out that address yet for the same reason this is the first time I've posted the tree21 address here, I'm not looking for reviews, I've a lot of work to do to these sites before I'm ready to subject them to open criticism (to much of my own!).
I just thought I'd drop back into the forum here and share my experience with XHTML1.1. That and while I've been working on my own sites I landed some work (YES!) and have the first page done for them http://www.blueowlhosting.com/index.xhtml wasnt up prior to the last google crawl so it's to soon to gauge the SEO results of the change over. But what I do know, is that I haven't just been converting pages- I've become a converted code junkie. Doing the index.xhtml page for them- cut their file size by over 50%! With no loss of apearance or function.
Now for a little warning on this subject- don't and I repeat DON'T do the old copy and paste code theft with this stuff- LEARN IT at http://www.w3c.org One part of the rational for this warning is simple, if you try and save the page as .xhtml and open it in IE online, it won't (that part of why anyway). And dont say I didnt warn yah! this stuff is not the kind you copy a few lines from someone elses page and add it to yours- it isnt meant to be parsed as text/html but as application xml-xhtml Its very unforgiving and if you make even one error and try and open it in mozilla, it wont. You'll need to learn some php, how to alter your htaccess file, and a number of other important items before you even try and load the page online- and do extensive testing of it in mozilla first too.
Bottom line- this is not an easy thing to learn to do right- but it's worth it once you do. It may seem intimidating and like you just lost a ton of functionality and design abilities at first, but thats part of what I'm setting out to prove- you can have your cake and it will look like cake too. At half the bandwidth- and accessable to more devices! Anyone else wanna share their experences here? I'd like to hear them!
Last edited on Fri Jul 18th, 2003 10:07 pm by tree
|
tree
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 29th, 2003 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Dec 27th, 2003 05:30 am |
|
While I would really really like to hear others on this subject (hint hint), I've been doing this for a number of months now. So here is the question, why not convert to xhtml1.1? I have yet to find anything that I can do in html that I cant in valid xhtml1.1 This includes opening a link in a new window (just finished doing that for my current client, and yes it is valid xhtml1.1).
My own site listed above still could use a lot of work, but then, I've been working for other people and just bought two more domain names, (well of course one just happens to be xhtml11.com which like the absence of input here in the forums, no seems interested?). So I've been rather busy, but the coding...ahhh that. Look at it this way. If search engines give x number of points to a single page, and half your file size of your page is in font this and font that, rather than content- arent you loosing a lot of value in the search engines with old fashioned html?
Another way to look at it. If xhtml1.1 valid coding is considered by the spiders as higher quality coding (thus, site) dont they want to give the best site in the returns for a query?
If that dont make you listen, try, I have a 100% success rate with #1 listings in google for my clients (that is not 99%). So why is this subject so quiet here? Comments, experences, questions- all are welcome here. Its a FORUM 
|
chobo
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 3rd, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 3rd, 2004 10:07 pm |
|
| HI, I am also new to the forums. I am going to start converting my 1 template .asp page to xhtml 1.1 because everytime I view it in netscape the css is messed up and displays all funky. Everything in my html works fine in IE but other browsers aren't so forgiving. I think anyone who is starting out should adhere to the xhtml standard, after all it is just html that has syntax rules, and stuff so it makes it easy to be compatable with other browsers. I'll starting tonight, I think the html part will go smoothly, just a matter of closing tags like <br /> and <hr />, but the css might prove to be a bit tricky. Last edited on Wed Mar 3rd, 2004 10:08 pm by chobo
|
tree
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 29th, 2003 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 3rd, 2004 10:21 pm |
|
Hi. Since I started writing in this post a number of things have happened.
I'm, now, #1 in most search engines under xhtml1.1 website designer (boy talk about coming a long way!).
Umm xhtml1.1 and .asp have some issues. If you convert to xhtml1.1 (quite different than even xhtml1.0 strict!!!) for one thing, if you view your pages on like, mozilla or other browser that "should" open it as application/xhtml+xml, but on an asp server, I have yet to have it not open it as text/html even though your coding is valid. (if measage me here Ill give you a site example of xhtml1.1 on an asp server Im converting)
Also, you will find out very soon if you havent already, that even the same css file will load the page differently, 'just' by the change of your DTD. So check carefully your page in different browsers (and on Mac if you have one or access to one).
STRICT adhearance to css2.0 is recomended, but even still, it can be tricky, as not all browsers and operating systems support css2.0 equally.
Also if you message me your url Id like to see your results (even if only a testpage).
-=Tree=-
|
chobo
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 3rd, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 4th, 2004 01:02 am |
|
I just finished converting my index page to xhtml1.0 transitional. I think the strict version was a bit too picky for me. Once I get a better handle on css I will probably go for strict, and do everything throught stylesheets. I haven't uploaded my page to a webserver yet, I still need to work on the layout some more so it might be awhile. As for css and other browsers I realize that probably only ie will work with css perfectly while others such as netscape and mozilla will have a few css attributes that aren't 100% working.
|
Current time is 05:53 pm | |
|
|
|
|
