If you are using it before the onload event fires, as you presumably are, to build elements from structured data for instance, it is the appropriate tool to use. By the time it is finished this script creates over DOM nodes, mostly table cells. On a 7 year old PC running Firefox on Vista, this little exercise takes less than 2 seconds using document. The page just pops into existence fully formed, ready to handle events.
I don't want to see extra space in my output. Isn't HTML good enough? HTML is probably the most successful document markup language in the world.
The opinion at the workshop was a clear 'Yes': We could also take advantage of the redesign to clean up some of the more untidy parts of HTML, and add some new needed functionality, like better forms. Why are browsers so fussy about XML?
They were more accepting with HTML. HTML browsers accept any input, correct or incorrect, and try to make something sensible of it. This error-correction makes browsers very hard to write, especially if all browsers are expected to do the same thing.
It has also meant that huge numbers of HTML documents are incorrect, because since they display OK in the browser, the author isn't aware of the errors. This makes it incredibly difficult to write new web user agents since documents claiming to be HTML are often so poor.
It displays all right on my browser. All browsers know how to deal with correct HTML. However, if it is incorrect, the browser has to repair the document, and since not all browsers repair documents in the same way, this introduces differences, so that your document may look and work differently on different browsers.
Since there are hundreds of different browsers, and more coming all the time not only on PCs, but also on PDAs, mobile phones, televisions, printers, even refrigeratorsit is impossible to test your document on every browser.
If you use incorrect HTML and your document doesn't work on a particular browser, it is your fault; if you use correct HTML and it doesn't work, it is a bug in the browser. Where can I go to verify my document uses correct markup?
W3C offers a service at http: Why do you say "user agent" everywhere, instead of "browser"?
Search engines for instance read documents, but are not browsers. By using the term "user agent" we are trying to remind people of the difference. For example, when you do a Google search often you will see under some of the search results something like "This web page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.
This threatened to cause a chaos of different non-interoperable versions of HTML. XML the X stands for Extensible allows anyone to use elements and elements from different languages, but for a browser or other user agent to know which element belongs to which language, you have to tell it.
The namespace declarations do just that. In fact, any modern browser. Include at the top of your document the line in bold here: Because of the way XML is defined, it is not possible to do tricks like this, where markup is generated by scripting while the parser is still parsing the markup.
You can still achieve the same effects, but you have to do it by using the DOM to add and delete elements. It cannot reliably be sent to legacy browsers. All three of these were deliberately kept as close as possible to HTML 4. The other two versions, transitional and frameset, were not updated, because there was nothing to update.
Modularization also makes it clear where it is OK to add new elements, and where it is not. Areas that have received particular attention include better structuring possibilities, removing features that are duplicated in XML, usability, accessibility, internationalization, device independence, better forms, and reducing the need for scripting.
It has no fallback possibilities, so that if you use an image of type PNG for instance, and the browser can't handle that type, the only alternative is to use the alt text.
This fact has hampered the adoption of PNG images, which in many ways are better than GIF and JPG, since people have continued to use the lowest-common denominator format, to ensure that everyone can see the images. The alt text cannot be marked up, so that if it gets used, you just get the plain text.
It is possible to include a longdesc link to a description of the image, to help people who cannot see, but it is seldom implemented.
What XHTML2 does is say that all images are equivalent to some piece of content; it does this by allowing you to put a src attribute on any element at all. What this says is: If you want to supply more than one sort of image, you can do: If there is no available image, then the content of the element would be used.
In the HTML syntax, most elements are written with a start tag and an end tag, with the content in between. An HTML tag is composed of the name of the element, surrounded by angle ph-vs.com end tag also has a slash after the opening angle bracket, to distinguish it from the start tag. Alternative for innerHTML?
Ask Question. Their view is that with innerHTML, it's possible to insert invalid markup into an XML/XHTML document. Though that said, they seem to have changed their minds with HTML5. please note that innerHTML is going to be part of the upcoming HTML 5 standard.
share | improve this answer. answered Apr 5 ' Replacing ph-vs.com()s in an xhtml+xml page.
Ask Question. up vote 13 down vote favorite. 5. Note that you'll need to fix the HTML to be valid XHTML, but that should be much less work than converting all the code to use DOM manipulation.
share | improve this .
Polyglot markup, itself being valid HTML5, supports extensibility as it is defined in Section Extensibility of HTML5, so long as the extension does not violate the rules of polyglot markup.
HTML5]] In addition, being well formed XML, polyglot markup can be extended when it is served as application/xhtml+xml. HTML Editor’s Draft, 18 October The flag is set by the ph-vs.com() and ph-vs.com() methods in certain situations. When its type attribute has the value xhtml, the Atom specification requires that it contain a single HTML div element.