To use xHTML or HTML?

XHTML usually here for me.

I like going with standards, even if you don't have XML, xHTML is still cleaner and more efficiant.

Originally Posted by Garrett I like going with standards, even if you don't have XML, xHTML is still cleaner and more efficiant.

xHTML is no more "cleaner" or "efficiant".

The way the majority of people use xHTML, they might as well be using plain HTML. By closing all your tags and quoting attributes, you aren't using xHTML. You're simply closing your tags and adding quotes. I can do that in HTML 4.01 too and still be valid.

When you try to use xHTML "formatting" without sending the data as xHTML, you can actually create problems. Not to mention the numerous rules that must be followed in true xHTML for a document to be valid (try writing inline JavaScript in xHTML and see what isn't allowed)...

I use HTML 4.01 Strict because I have no use for XHTML. So if I used XHTML, it would just me using HTML with a fancy name and a few different tags. Unless you use XML, XHTML is just the same as HTML.

I only know HTML 4.01 strict lol, I need to learn xhtml, its easy but Im too lazy to vaidate it.

Almost always use XHTML. You don't HAVE to validate your xhtml all the time though, although i suppose it's better to..

Originally Posted by Techno The win? Wow your not childish? If it is .htm or .html it is put across as text/html. Now either my eyes are playing up or I mentioned no where about server side scripts. Ofcourse you can with PHP etc... But we are talking about xHTML/HTML coding which dosen't need PHP.

and i'm not ashamed of it. pretending to be "profesisonal" doesn't get you anywhere in life. you don't have to try (read: attempt) if you're good at it, so spare me the "i'm so mature for my age" routine.

true, .htm/l are sent as text/html, but in this day and age, the majority of web based content is dynamically served, bringing server side languages into play, which then allow you choose which mime type you send, making my statement entirely relevent. if you're in a spot where you've got descision making power over what language to use, odds are high your choices extend beyond xhtml and html.

plus, if you're actually worrying over the outcomes of such a thing, odds are eqaually as high that your project's scope is far more complex than a static webpage, which brings the dynamic element into place once more.

XHTML, because I'll be accustomed to the xhtml style tags (end) in the future...

Originally Posted by dereklapp and i'm not ashamed of it. pretending to be "profesisonal" doesn't get you anywhere in life. you don't have to try (read: attempt) if you're good at it, so spare me the "i'm so mature for my age" routine. true, .htm/l are sent as text/html, but in this day and age, the majority of web based content is dynamically served, bringing server side languages into play, which then allow you choose which mime type you send, making my statement entirely relevent. if you're in a spot where you've got descision making power over what language to use, odds are high your choices extend beyond xhtml and html. plus, if you're actually worrying over the outcomes of such a thing, odds are eqaually as high that your project's scope is far more complex than a static webpage, which brings the dynamic element into place once more.

You said my point is true yet you are trying to argue with it?

i'm arguing with this notion that it has to be labled .xhtml as if it's a file type.