|
|
|
|
Thread title: Advantages of xhtml? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thread tools
Search this thread
Display Modes
|
|
01-08-2006, 06:06 AM
|
#31
|
Status: Simply to simplify
Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Foxton, Manawatu, New Zealand
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 5,572
|
Check out this XHTML FAQ:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq
Consider that although XHTML is not necessary unless you are blending in higher languages it is good to learn a language that takes 5 minutes once you know html.
|
|
03-28-2006, 06:07 AM
|
#32
|
Status: Junior Member
Join date: Mar 2006
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 28
|
For most people/sites, there is no advantage to using XHTML over HTML, if you measure "advantage" in business terms (does it increase the bottom line?).
I worked for a company where I started implementing XHTML because it did increase the bottom line, though, at least in terms of efficiency for single sourcing solutions. Because XHTML is XML, that uses HTML tag names for it's elements, you can parse XHTML just like XML but it also works in Web browsers.
We used it to create HTML Help files that could also be converted into PDFs.
So if you need/want to convert your HTML files into another XML format for other applications, then XHTML is the way to go.
Maybe in the future (5 years) XHTML will be more necessary on the Web as XML becomes more supported and expected in end-user applications. RSS is XML, for example.
Did that help?
|
|
03-28-2006, 06:31 PM
|
#33
|
Status: Member
Join date: Mar 2006
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 123
|
I've used both standard html and strict xhtml, not much difference in anything really. Just like how people claim tableless designs are faster than ones with tables, that's usually not really true either. The actual code is only a couple of Kbs, so it wont really matter much. Images and compression of them matters more in my opinion.
Googlebot picks up any code though. I've had sites with html and xhtml that have showed up on google quickly.
|
|
03-28-2006, 07:22 PM
|
#34
|
Status: design rockstar
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: guelph, ontario
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,246
|
download time and render time are totally different. tabless designs are generally faster, because designs coded using tables to strcure and style are most often, they're made by people who aren't good at coding, and they've nested about 12 different tables. the **** imageready outputs downloads easily and takes a lot longer than it should to render on the screen.
most people who are good at web development just code tableess because it's more logical and pretty much the same workload.
|
|
03-28-2006, 08:21 PM
|
#35
|
Status: Junior Member
Join date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Louis
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 26
|
Here's my bit of proof why it's better. Last year i finished a site that was plain old html 4.0, and, it didn't even validate. I had a doctype, i had keywords, robots txt., i had good content and titles. Basically, i had everything that seemed to be "a good lunch" for search engines. I submitted to google and yahoo in the same day. I was listed in google about a month later, and Yahoo...it took about 4 months. I only submitted once.
In contrast. I spent the past year focusing on the "tiny" differences between html and (x)html because i suddenly became interested in "standards and validation." Since February, i have finished two sites, both valid (x)html, and submitted them both (about a month apart.) The first website was listed in google within a week and half and in yahoo in less than a month. My site was listed even faster. I had almost simultaneous inclusion in both yahoo and google within a week. Soon after, i was included in msn, dogpile, askjeeves, etc. Again... i only submitted both pages once.
I think the "valid" code does play a part in this, but code can still validate and be a complete mess. So much so, that spiders and bots will not consider it.
There's alot to consider. Keywords and relation to body text. Page titles and consistencies. And, of course links and content. But, in my experience, i would say that valid (x)html teamed with valid css can make for a very enticing morsel for search engines to feast on... the first time they find it.
|
|
03-29-2006, 05:02 AM
|
#36
|
Status: Junior Member
Join date: Mar 2006
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 28
|
The Ape,
I suspect the differences you noticed in the search engine inclusion were due to some other factor. With all due respect, I have not seen a difference in HTML vs. XHTML as to whether a site was indexed quickly by Google.
I use a content management system that does not output all valid XHTML. The code I personally add to it is valid. But the code wrapper around my code by the CMS is not completely valid. And it's a bit bloated, too.
I think Google is just indexing sites faster now. My sites show up within a few weeks. It used to be the case that I might not get indexed at all, but that was a few years ago. Or maybe it's just that my content is better now?
I bet your content is better now too and that you are doing something else different.
Something I believe makes a difference is that, since I use a CMS, my content is updated frequently and is much more relevant and there's more of it, since it's easier for me to add content. And all that helps my search ratings AS WELL AS getting my site indexed in the first place.
In the past, I would register a domain name and then it would sit for months, with no or little content or updates. Now, I get content up the day I register the name, which has propogated quickly so my site is literally available in less than 15 minutes! Of course it helps that I own my hosting company, so I create an account, register the name, upload content, and 15 minutes later ... a live Web site, ready to go. Shortly thereafter, within a few days usually, Google hits my new site, which already has content. As the site develops, more content is added regularly. So each time the Google bot returns, there's plenty of new content
I think all that makes a huge difference, not whether the content is coded in HTML, XHTML, valid or not.
Does any of that ring true for you? I would be very interested in hearing more about your experience.
|
|
03-29-2006, 04:52 PM
|
#37
|
Status: I love this place
Join date: Mar 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 640
|
I don't think speed or search engine optimization or anything like that is a benefit of XHTML over HTML. The fact is you can have semantic HTML code and have it just as effective. XHTML just makes sure you have closing tags etc..
So if you're not going to use other technologies that require XHTML there is no real benefit besides it sounds a whole lot cooler and it's a step forward. The real advantage is your style of markup.
|
|
03-29-2006, 06:22 PM
|
#38
|
Status: design rockstar
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: guelph, ontario
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,246
|
xhtml or html has no impact on search engines. this attitude that xhtml is only for the world wide web is the root of any problem surrounding xhtml. it's been said before, and sadly it'll have to be said again later: xhtml is just html served by xml. on the web, whether you use html or xhtml makes absoultely no difference, because they're being used to do the same thing.
xhtml just is a transition phase for new browser relases (and front end developers) to adapt to xml so they can interact with handhelds and other media devices on the same level. nothing more.
|
|
03-29-2006, 11:07 PM
|
#39
|
Status: Junior Member
Join date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Louis
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 26
|
I agree with dereklapp... "transition." I'll be surprised when the day comes when we have a universal language that will never have to be forced to change. Blame that on what you want, different browsers, language integration, or maybe those who set the standards.
In response to m23, i do agree that xhtml might not have anything to do with anything except a few slashes and a doctype. But, mainly, i noticed this trend with web pages and searches that astonishes me. I'll somethimes come across a site that looks like it hasn't been updated in 10 years, and in some cases it hasn't, but it still shows up #1 on google for its keywords or external link status. I sometimes wonder if it's all worth it... trying to satisfy the standards.
In any case, i've been brainwashed to believe that my current markup is the best. So, i'm sticking to it as long as it works... or atleast until it's destroyed by (superx)html-xml-25.0javascript-transitional. Ha!
|
|
04-11-2006, 06:33 PM
|
#40
|
Status: I'm new around here
Join date: Apr 2006
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2
|
Well, the best thing about it got to be the fact that your pages load a lot faster!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
|