XHTML用于教学

严格，原因如下： - XML语法教学比HTML / SGML简单得多，仅仅因为 没有那么多例外和细微差别。 - 语言越严格，在编写网页时，他们被迫更加严格 。 - 这将更容易使用XSLT，如果他们只知道XML，以及他们是否仍然在XML世界中保持整个时间。 - 他们将有一些使用XML的其他课程，所以他们 应该在熟悉的领域。 - XML是未来（相当蹩脚的论据，我知道，但我相信 ;-)。 显然，他们需要验证所有网页，以便 它不会标记汤。网页将作为文本/ html用于IE 支持（或者我可能会尝试安装一些内容协商机制） 我会谈到尊重附录C兼容性规则（通过 的方式，是否有一个在线工具来检查是否符合这些？）。 我看到的主要缺点之一是义务删除XML prolog，以确保IE处于严格的CSS模式，因此确保所有网页都是UTF-8确保 。 有没有人在这个非常具体的 上下文中看到任何其他不使用XHTML的原因？ - Pierre Senellart 解决方案 Pierre Senellart< in ***** @ invalid.org>写道： 有没有人在这个非常具体的背景下看到任何其他不使用XHTML的原因？ 关于你的背景没有具体说明。 查看当前的帖子XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0。在这个小组中，和 http：//www.spartanicus .utvinternet.ie / no-xhtml.htm - Spartanicus Spartanicus，comp.infosystems。 www.authoring.html: 在这个非常具体的背景下，是否有人看到任何其他不使用XHTML的原因？您的背景没有具体说明。 是的，有。我在这个特定的上下文中提供了许多支持XHTML的论据。主要的一点是学生学习XML语法要比HTML语法容易得多（因为用户代理理解的HTML方言没有正式描述，所以更加容易）通过 任何东西，绝对没有SGML规则描述）。越简单越好。 查看当前线程XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0。在这个小组中，和 http：//www.spartanicus .utvinternet.ie / no-xhtml.htm 我对这些论点很熟悉，但我仍然不相信 与我的论点形成鲜明对比原始消息。 特别是： ＃它更严格。没有什么能阻止作者应用同样的东西对HTML的严格性。这完全取决于作者，它不需要更严格的DTD。你喜欢关闭段落标签吗？是什么阻止你使用它们？它们在HTML下有效。对于那些喜欢这个想法的人来说，验证警告他们如果他们忘了关闭段落元素，那么使用自定义HTML DTD验证并不困难作为XHTML DTD。验证针对自定义DTD的简短指南。 我绝对不想让它们针对cutom SGML DTD进行验证 他们（我，就此而言！）将不会理解任何内容。 在文章< dg *********** @ nef.ens.fr>， Pierre Senellart< in ***** @ invalid.org>写道： 我将教授一个基本的网页设计课程（HTML / CSS基础，加上一些基本的客户端（JavaScript） 客户端JS与application / xhtml + xml和 text / html的交互方式不同。 我强烈考虑教授XHTML 1.0 Strict而不是HTML 4.01 严格，原因如下： - XML语法比HTML / SGML简单易学，只是因为没有那么多例外和细微之处。 但是如果他们以text / html的形式发送，那么细微之处比学习更糟糕 HTML。 - 如果使用XSLT会更容易他们只知道XML，以及他们是否一直都在XML世界中。 TSaxon： http://mercury.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/tagsoup/tsaxon/ 和我谈论尊重附录C.兼容性规则（通过方式，是否有一个用于检查与这些符合性的在线工具？）。 http：// qa-dev.w3.org/~bjoern/appendix-c/validator/ 我不知道它是否真的有效。 因此确保所有网页都是UTF-8。 使用UTF-8是应该教授的最佳实践。 是否有人看到任何其他原因不使用XHTML这个非常具体的/> context？ 与附录C相关的问题可能会让HTML更加混乱。 参见： http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml - Henri Sivonen hs******@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ Mozilla Web Author FAQ： http：// mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html I am going to teach a basic Web design course (fundamentals of HTML/CSS,plus some basic client-side (JavaScript) and server-side (PHP, perhapsXSLT) scripting). Most of the students do not have any previous knowledgeof all of this. I am strongly considering teaching XHTML 1.0 Strict instead of HTML 4.01strict, for the following reasons:- XML syntax is far more simple to teach than HTML/SGML, simply becausethere are not as many exceptions and subtleties.- The stricter the language is, the stricter they are compelled to bewhen writing webpages.- It will be easier to use XSLT if they only know about XML and if theyremain the whole time in an XML world.- They will have some other courses where XML is used, so that theyshould be in familiar territory.- XML is the future (rather lame argument, I know, but one I believe in;-). They would be required to validate all their webpages, obviously, so thatit will not be tag soup. Webpages would be served as text/html for IEsupport (or I might try to install some content negociation mechanism)and I would talk about respecting Appendix C compatibility rules (by theway, is there an on-line tool for checking conformity with these?). One of the major drawback I see is the obligation to remove the XMLprolog, to be sure IE is in strict mode for CSS, and therefore to makesure that all webpages are in UTF-8. Does anybody see any other reason not to use XHTML in this very specificcontext? --Pierre Senellart 解决方案 Pierre Senellart <in*****@invalid.org> wrote: Does anybody see any other reason not to use XHTML in this very specificcontext? There''s nothing specific about your context. Check out the current thread "XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0" in this group, and http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm --SpartanicusSpartanicus ,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html: Does anybody see any other reason not to use XHTML in this very specificcontext? There''s nothing specific about your context. Yes, there is. I provided a number of arguments in favor of XHTML in thisspecific context. The main one is that it is much easier forstudents to learn XML syntax than HTML syntax (all the more since theHTML dialect that user agents understand is not formally described byanything, and is definitely not described by SGML rules). The moresimple, the better. Check out the current thread "XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0" in this group, and http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm I am familiar with these arguments, but I am still not convinced incontrast with the arguments in my original message. In particular: # It''s stricter. There''s nothing to stop an author from applying the same "strictness" to HTML. This is purely down to the author, it doesn''t need a stricter DTD. You prefer having closing paragraph tags? What''s stopping you from using them? They are valid under HTML. For those that like the idea that validation warns them if they for example forget to close a paragraph element, it''s not difficult to validate using a custom HTML DTD that is as strict as the XHTML DTD. A short guide to validating against a custom DTD. I definitely do not want to make them validate against a cutom SGML DTDthey (and I, for that matter!) will not understand anything of.In article <dg***********@nef.ens.fr>,Pierre Senellart <in*****@invalid.org> wrote: I am going to teach a basic Web design course (fundamentals of HTML/CSS, plus some basic client-side (JavaScript)Client-side JS interacts differently with application/xhtml+xml andtext/html. I am strongly considering teaching XHTML 1.0 Strict instead of HTML 4.01 strict, for the following reasons: - XML syntax is far more simple to teach than HTML/SGML, simply because there are not as many exceptions and subtleties.But if they send it as text/html, the subtleties are worse than learningHTML. - It will be easier to use XSLT if they only know about XML and if they remain the whole time in an XML world.TSaxon: http://mercury.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/tagsoup/tsaxon/ and I would talk about respecting Appendix C compatibility rules (by the way, is there an on-line tool for checking conformity with these?). http://qa-dev.w3.org/~bjoern/appendix-c/validator/I don''t know if it really works. therefore to make sure that all webpages are in UTF-8.Using UTF-8 is the best practice that should be taught anyway. Does anybody see any other reason not to use XHTML in this very specific context? The issues related to Appendix C are likely more confusing that HTML.See also: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml --Henri Sivonen hs******@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html 这篇关于XHTML用于教学的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！