XHTML Within the Changing Browser Landscape

[andreea]

I know XHTML has been discussed before with some mixed reviews in the face of improvements in both XHTML(2) and HTML(5) in the near future, but as Google's morphing, mobile is growing and competition stiffens in saturated gambling verticals, I wonder whether any affiliates are looking more toward XHTML as a mode of enriching their pages to try and compete parallel to typical SEO efforts and various campaigns.

Are you investing your short-term time and effort into PPC and other campaigns while waiting for the ball to drop on the next best coding language upgrade, or are you investing your time into XHTML while facing this rapidly changing, highly competitive period in online marketing? What are your personal thoughts on this and how should operators be helping you out?

[TheGooner]

Browsers will remain backward compatiable for the forseeable future - simple because the vast majority of the web is coded in basic HTML and to release a browser that does not support HTML would be commerical suicide.

So striving to be an early adopter of a new standard doesn't seem to make sense or be a good use of limited time.

That being said if there are particular features that are being released in XHTML that cannot be produced any other way - then there might be a sound reason to include components ...

... but I have not seen anything yet that justifies the effort.

Have you got a good example to show us?

[andreea]

I'm the first to claim I'm no expert but from what I understand so far, XHTML allows for more enriched web pages and it's a stricter form of HTML in that there can be no syntax errors. Every piece of code has to be properly closed, no CAPS, no margin of error, but once this is done, the engine bots will more easily interpret the pages and they will load faster and are better indexed by the search engine bots as well.

XHTML pages are accepted by all browsers and will be supported by the upcoming versions of IE and Mozilla. This is also the code to use for mobile devices as the site will appear in proper size on the mobile screen.

I'll look for a good example of a site, although the difference will not be visible. It's more about the capabilities and improvements of using the code than the direct visible modifications we might expect.

[TheGooner]

Thanks for the follow-up Andrea.

That was my main point - that there is NO VISABLE DIFFERENCE - and with the processing power available in most processors, the difference in rendering pages is almost unmeasureable, addtionally bots also manage to navigate the vast mountains of existing HTML code

Much like W3C compliance, the XHTML standards are solutions to fix a problem that doesn't really exist in the real world.

If there are practical benefits, measureable and tangible advantages to XHTML then I might start coding new pages using it in time - but I do not ever envisage revisiting old pages and retrofitting it.

HTML is a legacy standard - and much like COBOL in the business world - I beleive that despite the hype and hoopla for new languages and standards, you will find that the old standards will continue to exist for decades to come.

[andreea]

I think the people this will affect the most is actually the sites wanting to go mobile because for them, as you say, the differences are tangible and it makes sense.

I'm not so sure though that HTML will be around forever and be backwards compatible. Word is that once the browsers upgrade and HTML 5 and the XHTML upgrade come out...they'll be supported but there's no backwards compatibility due to the whole point of the upgraded languages (no errors). As a result, the choice will become, to keep marketing to the older browser version users or go after the ones who have upgraded.

[TheGooner]

I'm not so sure though that HTML will be around forever and be backwards compatible. Word is that once the browsers upgrade and HTML 5 and the XHTML upgrade come out...they'll be supported but there's no backwards compatibility

This is interesting ... I hate to sound like Wikipeadia .... but do you have a quote or citation from someone saying that they'll reduce compatibility as that could change the landscape.

It would be commerical suicide if only one browser did it though.

[andreea]

That's definitely not a problem. I had been browsing in various blogs and sites comparing HTML5 and XHTML as well as the pros/cons/benefits/drawbacks of both if that will help you find more.

Here are some of the recent articles:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/10/c...npage_engadget

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/06/h...npage_engadget

These two talk about some of the mobile advantages the coding is very useful in as well as the effects of using the code in a recent site featuring the Tron trailer.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/201...ml5-tests.html
Provides some news on the testing of HTML5.

http://www.conceivablytech.com/4419/...be-talk-html6/
Mentions HTML 6 plans as well as a movement away from backwards compatibility.

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1659407
A more thorough look into the differentiations, another emphasis on its benefits for mobile and the re-assurance that it's not ready yet.

Different sources have some different comments, but for the most part, HTML 5 is currently most popular with mobile users and apps. The good news as mentioned in a couple of the articles is that there's still time for PC based sites and also that converting HTML 4 to 5 is possible using the calculators or paying someone to do it, of course.

Let me know if this helps
Are you working with any mobile operators at the moment?