12 replies to this topic

[frankeverson]

There seems to be a debate over here about HTML vs. XHTML. my designer contends that HTML is no longer preferred by Google search tools. We converted the whole site to XHTML. is that right?

[torka]

Your designer is mistaken.

Dunno where anybody would get the idea that Google "doesn't prefer" HTML, especially given that HTML is the language of the web. No matter how it starts out, it's all HTML by the time the browser renders it and the SE spider sees it. And in any case, the SEs aren't in the business of telling us how to code our pages.

XHTML, ASP, PHP, ASP.Net, plain old HTML, whatever. It's all good.

--Torka

[harpsound]

!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"

Hi Torka
I am considering upgrading from 4.01 transitional.
What is the future direction of the web languages?
Not so much for SEO but for ease/adaptability of coding.
I use heavily nested tables and am not yet ready to go fully CSS layout as I am waiting for IE7 becoming standardised.

Stephen V

[jehochman]

I wouldn't waste the effort to upgrade from 4.01 to XHTML. There's usually a more productive way to spend the time.

If you want to clean up the code, you can replace all the one column tables with P's and DIV's. There's nothing wrong with keeping some tables. Tables and CSS can co-exist. You can define classes and id's to specify the formatting of tables, rows and cells. Just do whatever works best and is easiest to maintain.

[microbe]

It is worth saying that there are lots of good reasons to upgrade to XHTML.

SEO is not really one of them.

[chrishirst]

In reality, unless you are going to be using XML/XSL/XSLT, XHTML is mostly used for vanity or designer "willy waving"

Pete (foamcow) wrote an really good post at Tek-Tips on why, where and what Doctype should be used, but in true TT style I can't find it (The search is really crap poor there). Maybe he'll happen by this thread and have it bookmarked.


If HTML is all you are using there is no need to spend lots of time getting your pages to validate to XHTML strict. Meeting 4.01 strict validation will be perfectly adequate. If you are really concerned with validation that is. Personally, cross browsers compatibility is always my target.

[Sarah]

Concerning valid html; which is better - <span> or <p> for outlining copy?

[torka]

Depends on what you're using the tag to do, I would think.

They're both valid, they just have different purposes. It's like asking which is better: a car or a piece of paper? One's excellent if you need to get to the grocery store, the other's great if you want to write out your grocery list. Which one you want to use at any given time is a function of what you want to do at that time.

So it basically depends on what you mean by "outlining copy."

--Torka

[Sarah]

Bad Naughty Sarah!

If this were the copy on a website:

Please either log in with your existing account details below or click the Register Button to create a new one.

Should the <span> be used to wrap around the copy, or should the <p> ?

I ask as I am uncertain and getting foggier by the minute, and I thought it would be a good one for all newbies too

[torka]

If it's supposed to be a standalone paragraph, I'd put <p></p> around it. That's what the <p></p> tag is supposed to be used for -- to delineate paragraphs. (A paragraph can be a single sentence, no matter what your English teacher may or may not have told you.)

If it's just one sentence within a larger paragraph and (for instance) I just wanted to format it in a different color or typeface to make it stand out from the other sentences within that paragraph, I'd use <span></span>.

As I say, it depends on how you're using the tag.

My YMMV

--Torka

[Clintorius]

.. or is it?

If you are going to revamp your site and is uncertain about the structure of a standard web page you can save a lot of time and trouble by using a little sum of money on a good book.

There are several good ones, but I would recommend 'Web Design In a Nutshell' by Niederst Robbins (O'Reilly, 2006). In the earlier editions of this book Robbins was using layout tables, but has now seen the light of CSS design and is very good at explaining the subject. If you do not want an extensive library this is the one book to buy.

If you need a more How To book, try to look at sitepoint.com.

I am not affiliated with O'Reilly or SitePoint.

C.

[outerbox]

it is good to update to XHTML. Some say browsers will only accept code that is perfectly written and will not "fix" code that is not proper anymore. Valid XHTML would be best for this senario, altough I find it hard to believe that this will happen, leaving 80% of websites , or more unviewable.

[torka]

Some say browsers will only accept code that is perfectly written and will not "fix" code that is not proper anymore.

Yeah, and some people say the Earth is flat.

There is nothing "improper" about good ol' HTML. There is no need to spend time/money updating perfectly acceptable HTML websites to XHTML just because "somebody" says it's "better."

--Torka