Comments on: To XHTML or not to XHTML? http://happygiraffe.net/blog/2009/07/15/to-xhtml-or-not-to-xhtml/ Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dom http://happygiraffe.net/blog/2009/07/15/to-xhtml-or-not-to-xhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-1230 dom Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:30:45 +0000 http://happygiraffe.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-1230 <a href="#comment-1228" rel="nofollow">@Mark</a> Actually, I wasn't talking about the header. I was talking about serving XHTML served up as text/html. This is what caused so many problems I switched to serving up HTML 4 instead. @Mark Actually, I wasn’t talking about the header. I was talking about serving XHTML served up as text/html. This is what caused so many problems I switched to serving up HTML 4 instead.

]]> By: dom http://happygiraffe.net/blog/2009/07/15/to-xhtml-or-not-to-xhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-1229 dom Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:32:46 +0000 http://happygiraffe.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-1229 <a href="#comment-1228" rel="nofollow">@Mark</a> The actual switch is worth documenting actually. This was on a <a href="http://cocoon.apache.org/2.1/" rel="nofollow">Cocoon</a> site and we found that simply switching the serializer from xhtml to html wasn't enough. We also had to add the following XSLT transform into the pipeline in order to strip out the XHTML namespace before serialization. I never did get to the bottom of why this was necessary. <pre lang="xml"> <xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" version="1.0"> <xsl:template match="*"> <xsl:element name="{local-name()}"> <xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()" /> </xsl:element> </xsl:template> <xsl:template match="@*"> <xsl:attribute name="{local-name()}"> <xsl:value-of select="." /> </xsl:attribute> </xsl:template> <xsl:template match="processing-instruction()|comment()"> <xsl:copy> <xsl:apply-templates select="node()" /> </xsl:copy> </xsl:template> </xsl:stylesheet> </pre> @Mark The actual switch is worth documenting actually. This was on a Cocoon site and we found that simply switching the serializer from xhtml to html wasn’t enough. We also had to add the following XSLT transform into the pipeline in order to strip out the XHTML namespace before serialization. I never did get to the bottom of why this was necessary.

<xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" version="1.0">
 
  <xsl:template match="*">
    <xsl:element name="{local-name()}">
      <xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()" />
    </xsl:element>
  </xsl:template>
 
  <xsl:template match="@*">
    <xsl:attribute name="{local-name()}">
      <xsl:value-of select="." />
    </xsl:attribute>
  </xsl:template>
 
  <xsl:template match="processing-instruction()|comment()">
    <xsl:copy>
      <xsl:apply-templates select="node()" />
    </xsl:copy>
  </xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>
]]> By: Mark http://happygiraffe.net/blog/2009/07/15/to-xhtml-or-not-to-xhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-1228 Mark Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:59:35 +0000 http://happygiraffe.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-1228 You might talk about the config and/or code changes you made to switch between XHTML and HTML 4. The header has already been covered (text/html vs. application/xhtml+xml, but presumably you changed other things, like perhaps a dialect choice in XSLT, etc. Great blog BTW, I seem to keep running across entries when I'm doing Google searches, always a good read. You might talk about the config and/or code changes you made to switch between XHTML and HTML 4. The header has already been covered (text/html vs. application/xhtml+xml, but presumably you changed other things, like perhaps a dialect choice in XSLT, etc.

Great blog BTW, I seem to keep running across entries when I’m doing Google searches, always a good read.

]]> By: Aristotle Pagaltzis http://happygiraffe.net/blog/2009/07/15/to-xhtml-or-not-to-xhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-1092 Aristotle Pagaltzis Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:22:31 +0000 http://happygiraffe.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-1092 No, it’s not vague at all. If you serve it as <code>text/html</code>, then browsers parse it as <code>text/html</code>, no matter what doctype and syntax you may have used. No, it’s not vague at all. If you serve it as text/html, then browsers parse it as text/html, no matter what doctype and syntax you may have used.

]]> By: dom http://happygiraffe.net/blog/2009/07/15/to-xhtml-or-not-to-xhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-1091 dom Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:44:01 +0000 http://happygiraffe.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-1091 <a href="#comment-1089" rel="nofollow">@Aristotle Pagaltzis</a> It's kind of vague for XHTML 1.0, IIRC. This is just an example of why it's a <em>really bad idea</em>. @Aristotle Pagaltzis It’s kind of vague for XHTML 1.0, IIRC. This is just an example of why it’s a really bad idea.

]]> By: Aristotle Pagaltzis http://happygiraffe.net/blog/2009/07/15/to-xhtml-or-not-to-xhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-1089 Aristotle Pagaltzis Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:44:16 +0000 http://happygiraffe.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-1089 You can’t serve XHTML as <code>text/html</code>. Whatever you serve as <code>text/html</code> is HTML – malformed HTML that happens to look like XHTML, maybe, but it’s HTML nonetheless. The only way to serve <strong>X</strong>HTML is to serve it as <code>application/xhtml+xml</code>. You can’t serve XHTML as text/html. Whatever you serve as text/html is HTML – malformed HTML that happens to look like XHTML, maybe, but it’s HTML nonetheless. The only way to serve XHTML is to serve it as application/xhtml+xml.

]]>