There has recently been a raising of consciousness to do with DTDs and charsets. There is now a dialogue concerning default mark up. Drawing these strands together, it might now be timely to raise a far more substantial issue. Why are we using xhtml at all? I do not yet know whether this is a knee jerk kind of thing or whether the proposed or continuing use of xhtml represents a considered view as to the best way forwards on behalf of the extant commiter group. In my opinion it is a mistake. Put simply the issue is to do with error handling. By default a malformed xml document will not render AT ALL. That is clearly unsatisfactory for most bloggers. The quick solution (kluge) is to hack the browser by serving up the wrong mime type. This also accomodates IE. By serving up a bogus mime type however we promptly loose all the advantages of xml and acquire a huge number of very unwelcome side effects. On some legacy platforms some people have been trying to point this out for two years and getting very little response. And now the chickens are coming home to roost and it is causing the predictable chaos. I hope - fervently - that we do not go down that route.
I think that the ostensible harm of serving xhtml with the wrong mime type is overblown. I think serving html 4.01 would cause more consternation than whatever chickens are coming home (which ones?)
Personally I'd rather not relearn the few syntax differences that html 4.01 had from what I've been working with for five years (self-closing tags &c.)
It doesn't particulary matter either way but which parts of habari would you have changed? Are plugin and theme authors so used to xhtml syntax that html 4.01-style syntax would increase the friction of developing for habari?
> There has recently been a raising of consciousness to do with DTDs and > charsets. There is now a dialogue concerning default mark up. Drawing > these strands together, it might now be timely to raise a far more > substantial issue. Why are we using xhtml at all? I do not yet know > whether this is a knee jerk kind of thing or whether the proposed or > continuing use of xhtml represents a considered view as to the best > way forwards on behalf of the extant commiter group. In my opinion it > is a mistake. Put simply the issue is to do with error handling. By > default a malformed xml document will not render AT ALL. > That is clearly unsatisfactory for most bloggers. The quick solution > (kluge) is to hack the browser by serving up the wrong mime type. This > also accomodates IE. By serving up a bogus mime type however we > promptly loose all the advantages of xml and acquire a huge number of > very unwelcome side effects. On some legacy platforms some people have > been trying to point this out for two years and getting very little > response. And now the chickens are coming home to roost and it is > causing the predictable chaos. I hope - fervently - that we do not go > down that route.
I'd prefer not to regress. I consider it regression, since I haven't used html 4.01 for years now, and I'm not planning to return to it. I think the "legacy platform" thing is overblown.... and that the mime type will sort itself before much longer in the overall schema.
In the long run, I'm not dev'ing themes for Habari, I'm dev'ing themes for me and my clients. If Habari comes "standard" with html 4.01 themes fine; I'll simply continue to do xhtml myself.
However, I *think* that if Habari regresses to html 4.01, there will be a fair amount of people who will feel that Habari is therefore not particularly "forward-motion". Which may or may not be problematic.... though considering its cutting-edge backend positioning....
On Feb 16, 1:37 pm, "Firas Durri" <fir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that the ostensible harm of serving xhtml with the wrong mime > type is overblown. I think serving html 4.01 would cause more > consternation than whatever chickens are coming home (which ones?)
> Personally I'd rather not relearn the few syntax differences that html > 4.01 had from what I've been working with for five years (self-closing > tags &c.)
> It doesn't particulary matter either way but which parts of habari > would you have changed? Are plugin and theme authors so used to xhtml > syntax that html 4.01-style syntax would increase the friction of > developing for habari?
> > There has recently been a raising of consciousness to do with DTDs and > > charsets. There is now a dialogue concerning default mark up. Drawing > > these strands together, it might now be timely to raise a far more > > substantial issue. Why are we using xhtml at all? I do not yet know > > whether this is a knee jerk kind of thing or whether the proposed or > > continuing use of xhtml represents a considered view as to the best > > way forwards on behalf of the extant commiter group. In my opinion it > > is a mistake. Put simply the issue is to do with error handling. By > > default a malformed xml document will not render AT ALL. > > That is clearly unsatisfactory for most bloggers. The quick solution > > (kluge) is to hack the browser by serving up the wrong mime type. This > > also accomodates IE. By serving up a bogus mime type however we > > promptly loose all the advantages of xml and acquire a huge number of > > very unwelcome side effects. On some legacy platforms some people have > > been trying to point this out for two years and getting very little > > response. And now the chickens are coming home to roost and it is > > causing the predictable chaos. I hope - fervently - that we do not go > > down that route.
> I think that the ostensible harm of serving xhtml with the wrong mime > type is overblown. I think serving html 4.01 would cause more > consternation than whatever chickens are coming home (which ones?)
> Personally I'd rather not relearn the few syntax differences that html > 4.01 had from what I've been working with for five years (self-closing > tags &c.)
> It doesn't particulary matter either way but which parts of habari > would you have changed? Are plugin and theme authors so used to xhtml > syntax that html 4.01-style syntax would increase the friction of > developing for habari?
> > There has recently been a raising of consciousness to do with DTDs and > > charsets. There is now a dialogue concerning default mark up. Drawing > > these strands together, it might now be timely to raise a far more > > substantial issue. Why are we using xhtml at all? I do not yet know > > whether this is a knee jerk kind of thing or whether the proposed or > > continuing use of xhtml represents a considered view as to the best > > way forwards on behalf of the extant commiter group. In my opinion it > > is a mistake. Put simply the issue is to do with error handling. By > > default a malformed xml document will not render AT ALL. > > That is clearly unsatisfactory for most bloggers. The quick solution > > (kluge) is to hack the browser by serving up the wrong mime type. This > > also accomodates IE. By serving up a bogus mime type however we > > promptly loose all the advantages of xml and acquire a huge number of > > very unwelcome side effects. On some legacy platforms some people have > > been trying to point this out for two years and getting very little > > response. And now the chickens are coming home to roost and it is > > causing the predictable chaos. I hope - fervently - that we do not go > > down that route.
> On 2/16/07, Firas Durri <fir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think that the ostensible harm of serving xhtml with the wrong mime > > type is overblown. I think serving html 4.01 would cause more > > consternation than whatever chickens are coming home (which ones?)
> > Personally I'd rather not relearn the few syntax differences that html > > 4.01 had from what I've been working with for five years (self-closing > > tags &c.)
> > It doesn't particulary matter either way but which parts of habari > > would you have changed? Are plugin and theme authors so used to xhtml > > syntax that html 4.01-style syntax would increase the friction of > > developing for habari?
> > > There has recently been a raising of consciousness to do with DTDs and > > > charsets. There is now a dialogue concerning default mark up. Drawing > > > these strands together, it might now be timely to raise a far more > > > substantial issue. Why are we using xhtml at all? I do not yet know > > > whether this is a knee jerk kind of thing or whether the proposed or > > > continuing use of xhtml represents a considered view as to the best > > > way forwards on behalf of the extant commiter group. In my opinion it > > > is a mistake. Put simply the issue is to do with error handling. By > > > default a malformed xml document will not render AT ALL. > > > That is clearly unsatisfactory for most bloggers. The quick solution > > > (kluge) is to hack the browser by serving up the wrong mime type. This > > > also accomodates IE. By serving up a bogus mime type however we > > > promptly loose all the advantages of xml and acquire a huge number of > > > very unwelcome side effects. On some legacy platforms some people have > > > been trying to point this out for two years and getting very little > > > response. And now the chickens are coming home to roost and it is > > > causing the predictable chaos. I hope - fervently - that we do not go > > > down that route.
You might not have received the memo. This is a big story. Many leading web devs are moving to html 4.0 as indeed am I very shortly. I see no reason for Habari to be using a broken standard.
On Feb 16, 9:55 pm, "vkaryl" <vka...@bytehaven.com> wrote:
Well, of course I wouldn't have "received the memo"; I'm not a "leading web dev".... Whatever.... I tend to think there's a lot of superciliousness in your attitudinalizing here. But as I said earlier, I don't care what you "leading devs" do, I'll just go on my merry way.... and that piece of php wizardry I linked up earlier works exactly as advertised, in case anyone cares....
On Feb 16, 3:01 pm, "Root" <atthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You might not have received the memo. This is a big story. > Many leading web devs are moving to html 4.0 as indeed am I very > shortly. > I see no reason for Habari to be using a broken standard.
> On Feb 16, 9:55 pm, "vkaryl" <vka...@bytehaven.com> wrote:
> > Huh? No clue - but sites are still displaying just fine I guess. If > > it's a huge problem for you, you can always use the option here:
On Feb 16, 10:41 pm, "vkaryl" <vka...@bytehaven.com> wrote:
> Well, of course I wouldn't have "received the memo"; I'm not a > "leading web dev".... Whatever.... I tend to think there's a lot of > superciliousness in your attitudinalizing here. But as I said > earlier, I don't care what you "leading devs" do, I'll just go on my > merry way.... and that piece of php wizardry I linked up earlier works > exactly as advertised, in case anyone cares....
Well I am not a leading web developer either. But it wouldn't be a bad thing for Habari to adopt some forward thinking in this as in everything else. There are some pros and cons in using scripts to serve different mime types. The first step is to reach a deeper understanding as to why what other platforms do is unsatisfactory. Then we can try and reach a consensus about what to do.
I would hazard a guess that any client who understood the issue would go with html. It was after all published as long ago as - heck - one month before the xhtml transitional. Hardly a regression. The case for serving faux xhtml with the wrong mime type for any longer is unsustainable. I have been forced into following the crowd against my better judgment on a number of *too cool* blog platforms. If we want any hope of moving to the new web standards emerging we need to get straight now. WP is in some difficulty in this regard.
I tend to think it's a mistake to turn back the clock. If everyone simply keeps on keepin' on at this point, eventually the world's most broken browser will manage to fall into line. For instance, had "leading web devs" the world around not kept up the "valid CSS" pressure on MS, IE7 would be even more broken than IE6 (no, MS wouldn't have done that on purpose, they simply wouldn't have made much if any change - so the only upshot would have been a change in the version number, not the fairly viable changes which WERE made).
So if "leading web devs" decide to go hide in the html 4.01 burrow, xhtml isn't ever going to happen the way it SHOULD happen. But if everyone keeps the pressure on.... by using it....
On Feb 16, 4:15 pm, "Root" <atthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 10:41 pm, "vkaryl" <vka...@bytehaven.com> wrote:
> > Well, of course I wouldn't have "received the memo"; I'm not a > > "leading web dev".... Whatever.... I tend to think there's a lot of > > superciliousness in your attitudinalizing here. But as I said > > earlier, I don't care what you "leading devs" do, I'll just go on my > > merry way.... and that piece of php wizardry I linked up earlier works > > exactly as advertised, in case anyone cares....
> Well I am not a leading web developer either. But it wouldn't be a bad > thing for Habari to adopt some forward thinking in this as in > everything else. There are some pros and cons in using scripts to > serve different mime types. The first step is to reach a deeper > understanding as to why what other platforms do is unsatisfactory. > Then we can try and reach a consensus about what to do.
> I would hazard a guess that any client who understood the issue would > go with html. It was after all published as long ago as - heck - one > month before the xhtml transitional. Hardly a regression. The case for > serving faux xhtml with the wrong mime type for any longer is > unsustainable. I have been forced into following the crowd against my > better judgment on a number of *too cool* blog platforms. If we want > any hope of moving to the new web standards emerging we need to get > straight now. WP is in some difficulty in this regard.
> I tend to think it's a mistake to turn back the clock. If everyone > simply keeps on keepin' on at this point, eventually the world's most > broken browser will manage to fall into line. For instance, had > "leading web devs" the world around not kept up the "valid CSS" > pressure on MS, IE7 would be even more broken than IE6 (no, MS > wouldn't have done that on purpose, they simply wouldn't have made > much if any change - so the only upshot would have been a change in > the version number, not the fairly viable changes which WERE made).
> So if "leading web devs" decide to go hide in the html 4.01 burrow, > xhtml isn't ever going to happen the way it SHOULD happen. But if > everyone keeps the pressure on.... by using it....
> > So if "leading web devs" decide to go hide in the html 4.01 burrow, > > xhtml isn't ever going to happen the way it SHOULD happen. But if > > everyone keeps the pressure on.... by using it....
As for my vote, when the standards bodies rescind XHTML as an official standard we can go back to HTML 4.01. Habari is geared towards using the most recent, and sometimes cutting edge standards and technology that the web has to offer. Moving to HTML 4.01 would fly in the face of what we are trying to do, therefore, I am pretty sure we shouldn't do it.
The only areas of Habari that we need concern ourselves with are those under our control, e.g. the Admin area, bundled help area and the default theme. If we can't write well formed XHTML for these three areas, then there is a larger problem here than what version of HTML we think is peachy keen.
If we create well formed, valid XHTML and a browser borks on it, then that really isn't our concern is it? This is yet another instance where we (being the user community) are enabling browser manufacturers to be lazy, sloppy coders. I for one, am tired of it.
And yes before you ask I have written my own web browser before, so I am somewhat familiar with the travails of implementing these things.
Chris
On Feb 16, 7:21 pm, "Root" <atthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 1:20 am, "chrisjdavis" <chrisdmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As for my vote, when the standards bodies rescind XHTML as an official > standard we can go back to HTML 4.01. Habari is geared towards using > the most recent, and sometimes cutting edge standards and technology > that the web has to offer. Moving to HTML 4.01 would fly in the face > of what we are trying to do, therefore, I am pretty sure we shouldn't > do it.
Chris, serving xhtml with the wrong mime type is not, and has never been; an official standard. The W3C say it *should not be used* as per my reference given. How does that make it an official standard?
Valid xhtml makes no difference. A browser will render the text/html mime type as tag soup anyway.
If Habari really wants to adopt cutting edge standards then we need to plan on maintaining the integrity of our code for over the next 10 years. XHTML trans is neither one thing nor the other. What I am advocating is strategic thinking based on the real issues.
And slightly OT - some other platforms have adopted the *it validates* policy. Well it may do and still be very unsatisfactory for IE users. I hope that validation itself does not become a substitute for *sloppy coding practices*. It is not enough.
> On Feb 18, 1:20 am, "chrisjdavis" <chrisdmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As for my vote, when the standards bodies rescind XHTML as an official > > standard we can go back to HTML 4.01. Habari is geared towards using > > the most recent, and sometimes cutting edge standards and technology > > that the web has to offer. Moving to HTML 4.01 would fly in the face > > of what we are trying to do, therefore, I am pretty sure we shouldn't > > do it.
> Chris, serving xhtml with the wrong mime type is not, and has never > been; an official standard. The W3C say it *should not be used* as per > my reference given. How does that make it an official standard?
The W3C says "MAY", which does not mean "should not be used". I don't want to get into a discussion of the nuances of "MAY"and "SHOULD" here, since that's all pretty clear in the document you referenced. But the bottom line is that sending it with text/html headers is indeed valid, and creating XHTML tags in output now puts us in a better position for when it makes sense (more browsers properly support) to send the application/xhtml+xml mime type, which HTML would not, since it is not XML-valid.
I agree with what Root is trying to say, but not at all in the way he is saying it.
Essentially, Habari creates content by concatenating strings. At this time, it has no inbuilt way of ensuring the resulting mega-string (page) is well-formed XML. Until such abilities are added, we're creating pseudo XML, crossing our fingers and sending it off into the wilds of the intarwebs. As auto_p-esque formatting because more complex (oh please Lord don't let Habari end up with something like wp_autop()!), and content altering plugins become more prevalent, the chances of Habari's output being well-formed XML become increasingly less.
Output quality will only get worse from this point, not better. Living in the false hopes that everyone (theme/plugin/content authors) will just Do The Right Thing is an open invite to increasing entropy.
Habari has a chance to lead here, not by forcing either XHTML or HTML, but by treating it's XML as such and building it in a node-based manner.
Do I have the code to make this happen? No. Do I know how much of a performance impact this may have? No. Am I ready and willing to try and make this a reality? Hell Yes.
> I agree with what Root is trying to say, but not at all in the way he > is saying it.
> Essentially, Habari creates content by concatenating strings. At this > time, it has no inbuilt way of ensuring the resulting mega-string > (page) is well-formed XML. Until such abilities are added, we're > creating pseudo XML, crossing our fingers and sending it off into the > wilds of the intarwebs. As auto_p-esque formatting because more > complex (oh please Lord don't let Habari end up with something like > wp_autop()!), and content altering plugins become more prevalent, the > chances of Habari's output being well-formed XML become increasingly > less.
> Output quality will only get worse from this point, not better. Living > in the false hopes that everyone (theme/plugin/content authors) will > just Do The Right Thing is an open invite to increasing entropy.
> Habari has a chance to lead here, not by forcing either XHTML or HTML, > but by treating it's XML as such and building it in a node-based > manner.
> Do I have the code to make this happen? No. > Do I know how much of a performance impact this may have? No. > Am I ready and willing to try and make this a reality? Hell Yes.
> +1 on that Andrew. Thanks for explaining the issue a million times > better than me.
> On Feb 19, 11:02 pm, "Andrew Krespanis" <leftjustif...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I agree with what Root is trying to say, but not at all in the way he > > is saying it.
> > Essentially, Habari creates content by concatenating strings. At this > > time, it has no inbuilt way of ensuring the resulting mega-string > > (page) is well-formed XML. Until such abilities are added, we're > > creating pseudo XML, crossing our fingers and sending it off into the > > wilds of the intarwebs. As auto_p-esque formatting because more > > complex (oh please Lord don't let Habari end up with something like > > wp_autop()!), and content altering plugins become more prevalent, the > > chances of Habari's output being well-formed XML become increasingly > > less.
> > Output quality will only get worse from this point, not better. Living > > in the false hopes that everyone (theme/plugin/content authors) will > > just Do The Right Thing is an open invite to increasing entropy.
> > Habari has a chance to lead here, not by forcing either XHTML or HTML, > > but by treating it's XML as such and building it in a node-based > > manner.
> > Do I have the code to make this happen? No. > > Do I know how much of a performance impact this may have? No. > > Am I ready and willing to try and make this a reality? Hell Yes.
> He's definitely of Ye Olde Schoole, so he comes down on the "serve > HTML only" side of the debate.
Users who want to write blog posts likely won't care about HTML vs XHTML. We must keep this in mind as this conversation continues.
So if the user doesn't care, what are the relative benefits and drawbacks to HTML and XHTML?
It sounds to me as though using HTML is a relatively "safe" way forward, and it allows us to sidestep some potential problems.
But using XHTML allows a website to be processed by XML parsing tools. I presume that parsing a plain ol' HTML document is a bit harder to do than an XHTML document, by dint of the fact that XHTML is rigidly structured XML. I don't know how folks might use XML parsing tools on web sites in the future, but it seems to me we ought to be making it easier for folks to do stuff with web content. If XHTML gets us closer to this goal, then I think that's worth consideration.
There also seems to be a problem of adoption. XHTML isn't yet widely adopted for use in some browsers. I am underwhelmed by this concern. Habari requires a new(er) version of PHP _specifically_ because we want to take advantage of what it has to offer. In the same way, I think it's fair to have a high(er) expectation for client-side tools for Habari.
Yes, I understand the difference between requirements on the host, which are one person's concern, and requirements on the clients, which may be well out of our control. Nonetheless, the adoption rate of new tools and technologies will not increase unless there are compelling reasons to start using them. I would like to see Habari help drive the adoption rate of useful technology, if that's at all within our capacity to do.
Andrew wrote: > Habari has a chance to lead here, not by forcing either XHTML or HTML, > but by treating it's XML as such and building it in a node-based > manner
I like the idea of Habari taking the lead.
As I said above, I think most users won't care. If we provide a WYSIWYG editor for Habari, then ostensibly that editor ought to handle the construction of XHTML from user input. I do not know the ramifications or challenges if we don't provide a WYSIWYG editor (or if users elect not to use it).
Andrew, since you're ready and willing to take the effort to make Habari build node-based XML, can you please outline what's involved, what changes (if any) need to be made to current Habari content handling, and how others might best help you in your effort?
