Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


I was browsing and found out that I could join the community =) Before I make my suggestion, I want to say that I'm using iJournal since I began my journal, and it's a great app ^_^ Oh... and... hallo community ^_^

Ok, my suggestion (don't know if it has been made before, so sorry): I've noticed that, in some of the How-To's, they mention using XHTML to replace HTML because it will become kinda old soon. Would be nice if iJournal had the alternative of choosing between XHTML and HTML when we are writing our entries. That would help alot ^_^


( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 17th, 2003 06:49 pm (UTC)
Well, this is not something which iJournal does since it doesn't actually write any HTML unless you ask for a link, italics, bold, or underline. Other than that, any of the HTML posted is stuff that you write, yourself. In that respect, there is nothing stopping you from writing XHTML.

Note that, as far as I know, XHTML is just a buzz-wordy name for HTML 5.0. I think that HTML is still valid XHTML since XHTML is just a super-set. I may be wrong, though. I do get annoyed by the massive needless complication that is HTML (they could have claimed to be done at about version 2.0 and still have the same functionality that they have today) so I rarely read the newer RFCs in any great detail.
Jul. 17th, 2003 07:00 pm (UTC)
You're right. For the most part, HTML is a subset of XHTML, although the syntax is slightly stricter.
Jul. 17th, 2003 07:11 pm (UTC)
I'm not referring to the other HTML, I'm referring to the things like Add Image, Link to URL, etc., you know, the basic things that iJournal lets you do.
Jul. 17th, 2003 08:41 pm (UTC)
I believe that in XHTML, images and links are exactly the same as they've always been since the first versions of HTML. Except you have to put quotes around all your attribute values.

I think. Reading the W3C documentation is really headache-inducing. Maybe you'd need to do <img src="blahblahblah" alt="lookit my piccy!" /> instead of <img src="blahblahblah" alt="lookit my piccy!"> - it's hard to tell - but that's about the only thing I could see that'd change.

And I think that bold/italics/underline are now Considered Harmful and you're supposed to use em, strong, and all those other long-winded notations, and make them come out as italics or bold or whatever you want via CSS - but who knows what kind of style sheets people will be viewing their friends list in?
Jul. 17th, 2003 09:45 pm (UTC)
I've seen some examples around (after I began to investigate more about XHTML), and they are similar to HTML but not the same, as you say, they have some variations.

Check this link in WebMonkey.com:

Jul. 17th, 2003 10:08 pm (UTC)
That is actually a good article since it is easy to scan it until they get to the point.

I never realized how most of the HTML I write is valid XHTML simply because I hate short-hands and that is one of the big differences (for example, I would always close a <P> tag).

Since this is more of a subset of HTML than a superset (in the respects we are concerned with, at least) we could probably implement this now, for all tags produced by iJournal.

Can anyone think of a reason why we should keep the legacy non-compliant stuff? Do any browsers choke on it? I have no idea where the state of adoption is so they could all fail with it, for all I know (well, I know that they don't, actually).
Jul. 18th, 2003 06:22 am (UTC)
As I understand, all new/latest browsers recognize XHTML, and once I tried changing some tags in my LiveJournal and I didn't had any problem, at least with Safari and Camino.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )


iJournal: Official LiveJournal Client for Mac OS X
iJournal Home

Latest Month

June 2011
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner