Some understanding of html/xhtml/xml/xsl

Xhtml|xml

Xhtml1. x must be HTML, and HTML is not necessarily XHTML1. X. Then if IE does not support XHTML, IE does not support HTML, it is not. Therefore, IE does not support XHTML I don't know what to do, but IE does not fully support CSS is true, but, but CSS is performance, performance and structure is irrelevant. XHTML is produced precisely because in HTML, performance and structure are mixed together, which is not conducive to a smooth transition to XML.

If you want to say worry, xhtml2.0 to worry, because there are a lot of new things to join in, you need to support the corresponding browser, unlike the current xhtml1.x, browsers do not have to change. But that worry may be a little early, and perhaps superfluous. First of all, xhtml2.0 is still in the draft and proposal and design, and 1.X has not been properly spread out, time is still long. Second, even if xhtml2.0 is recommended, it will take a long time for browsers to keep up with the pace because they are not fully backward compatible. So there's no need to worry, I think, even if XHTML is considered a transition technology, it's still quite alive.

Here, think of having seen such an article "understanding of the XHTML2.0, feeling" (it can not find the original source), the article finally put forward the view: My opinion is, directly to do the XML page! I don't approve of such a view.

Again, performance and structure, old growth talk, 2 years ago I recommended Atzie wrote a "understanding of performance and structure separation,"today I still have to spare no effort to recommend! The four parts, data, structure, performance, and behavior are written in the paper. Last time I gave a simple diagram:

Now I'm going to give you a more detailed diagram:

Data and structures are inseparable, and data that is detached from the structure is almost impossible to use. So pure data needs to be formatted with XHTML or XML to show its structure. The concrete Atzie more clearly than I can say. I'll focus on the structure here. In my understanding, the structure is divided into two parts, one is the semantic structure, the other is the code structure. Semantic structure is generated by semantics, and code structure is program-oriented. XML has a perfect code structure, but because of its highly scalable and customizable nature, it's hard to have a semantic structure unless it's based on a generic format, such as a hot RSS feed. So in the current browser through the Internet browsing HTML mode, the direct application of XML to write Web pages is not universal, but also difficult. XHTML, however, is a compromise that does not allow extensions to inherit the semantics of HTML, a semantic structure that modern browsers can recognize to accommodate the current Internet application environment, and to standardize it with XML rules, allowing it to inherit the perfect code structure for a smooth transition. So I said that CSS is relatively unimportant, the Web 2.0 era is a symbol of data to follow the user walk, the data here, of course, including structure, semantic structure and code structure. Besides, CSS this thing concentrates on the study, I thought one months is sufficient to be proficient. But does not mean that you can do the page is very beautiful, it is designed, and CSS, you dare to say 1 months proficient design? I did 6 years of design, still feel lack of too much, design difficult ah! So from the importance of CSS than XHTML, from the Technology of gold, CSS is not as good as the design, hehe seems to say that the CSS is useless, I was wrong, don't scold me.

As for the so-called xml+xsl, it is not an upgraded version of Xhtml+css, the meaning of XSL is transformation rather than control performance, XML is too open, so need XSL to transform, the semantic structure and code structure in XML into the corresponding standard structure in different fields, such as moving WML, or XHTML in the Web. So don't say I'm going to xml+xsl, what's the point of pair if you don't understand XHTML and convert HTML that looks like XHTML?

Finally, I think XHTML will definitely replace HTML (XHTML is aimed to replace HTML), but not necessarily by XML, or, as mentioned above, with considerable vitality. XML is only data and structure, and its semantics are program-oriented, not browser-oriented. If you want to complete the XML, first use the browser to browse the Web page This mode must first change, or the browser itself will have a larger kernel changes even need to redesign. These two are not a matter of time, so the meaning of XML more lies in the bridge, as the subject is not yet, whether as the subject of data (there is a database) or the structure of the body (with XHTML). So even if XHTML is considered a transition technology, it's been 1.0, 1.1 since 2000, and it's still moving toward 2.0 until all the conditions are ripe for XML to take over. The role of XHTML is to wait until the XML can take over and smooth the transition. I personally think that it is still early to talk about the transition, and 2003 said 99% is outdated, now? 2006 years, how much has been corrected? So, I think XHTML will be there for another 3 or 5 years or more. But the internet who knows, maybe tomorrow everything will change.

The future is unknown, tomorrow is too far away, we can only have a direction, and then fully grasp today.