intertwingly

Congratulations!

If there's anyone that belongs on the X-Philes...  ;)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intertwingly.net%2Fstories%2F2003%2F01%2F26%2Fevolve.html

Thanks, validator.  ;-)

At the moment, my statement applies to URLs relative to /blog, but now that you have mentioned it, I've added cleaning up my stories to my todo list.

Nice one! You should definitely get yourself on the X-Philes list.

Your blog archive page isn't valid either, but overall, supergood!

The archive pages now validate.

The story pages now validate as XHTML 1.0 Transitional.

Simon Jessey of Keystone Websites explains serving XHTML with the proper MIME type (to browsers that support it) using PHP. We’ve blogged before about the wealth of information at Simon’s company’s site. It’s definitely...

With XHTML 1.1, you SHOULD NOT use "text/html" as content type. If you don't want to serve the pages as "application/xhtml+xml" you might as well change the DOCTYPE to XHTML 1.0, as there's no real point in serving them as XHTML 1.1.

Yes, XHTML 1.1 served as "text/html" validates, but it is not recommended. Although W3C recommends "application/xhtml+xml" for all versions of XHTML, it is believed to be more acceptable to serve 1.0 as "text/html" than 1.1. More about this at W3C.

Asbjørn: this site serves its contents as "application/xhtml+xml" to those clients that indicate that they will accept such in their HTTP accept headers.

Yes, indeed. In fact, intertwingly.net is now on the X-Philes list.  (I should note that X-Phile sites that allow comments with markup are quite rare.  Congratulations, Sam.)

Ok, Cool, Sam. Though, it would be nicer to serve XHTML 1.0 as "text/html" than XHTML 1.1. Why is it that you choose XHTML 1.1 over 1.0? AFAIK, the only difference between the two is the guidelines to XML parsing (in regard to mime types), and some Ruby elements.

If you don't use the Ruby elements, why use XHTML 1.1? Just wondering.

I haven't done a diff between the specs, but when I tried to validate my index.html as XHTML 1.1, the validator complained about my use of the align attribute on imgs, this having been deprecated in favor of CSS. 

On the plus side, I was then able to use XPath queries to seek out all such usages.  ;-)

I'm of two minds on that particular issue myself.  On one hand, perhaps my use a combination of a deprecated attribute and CSS confused IE on entries such as this.

On the other hand, a pure CSS solution won't communicate this display information to users who read my site through syndication.

Evan Goer: intertwingly.net is now on the X-Philes list.  (I should note that X-Phile sites that allow comments with markup are quite rare.  Congratulations, Sam.) I find it a bit humorous that the X-Philes site itself is HTML 4.01. Also ...

Pingback from Sam Ruby: X-Philes

Sam,
the validator should complain about visual HTML attributes like align, border etc. in both XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1. The differences between the two standards are almost unnoticeable.

Using CSS to do visual adjustments to your HTML is the right way to go, regardless of what HTML version or DTD you use. Hence, the 'align' attribute shouldn't be used in neither HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0 or XHTML 1.1.

The 'float' property of CSS is supported in all new browsers, and IMHO it's not fatal if the image doesn't float because of the lacking CSS support in the user agent. I would even argue that not displaying the picture at all wouldn't be crucial, if the 'alt' attribute is used properly.

I guess you already know this. But I still wonder why you chose XHTML 1.1 instead of 1.0 Strict. :-)

Simon Jessey explains serving XHTML with the correct MIME type using PHP....