XHTML strict coding is good but how many browsers support it fully?
 

I'm learning XHTML strict and I'm so far impressed with the fully CSS oriented approach to it.

So much so that I have now built a formatting without tables and it looks great on firefox.

However, that's my question. How many browsers do implement all the CSS attributes and follow the strict XHTML coding and render it correctly currently?

So far I haven't tested with other browsers, but I'd be glad if somebody can point me to pure XHTML sites so that I can check out the results from IE and other browsers.

XHTML compatibility on existing HTML agents: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines

CSS compatibility for browsers:
http://www.corecss.com/properties/full-chart.php

Hope those two links help you out.

I also used the validator found here and got a success:
http://validator.w3.org/

This is useful too. However, I think that many browsers still are substandard when it comes to implementing CSS in XHTML. :(

Let's hope this changes in the future!

Yeah, the validator helps a lot. It doesn't tell expose compatibility issues with older browsers, though.

All newer browsers (and by new, I mean post-2001) handle CSS and XHTML pretty well (in my experience).

<DIV> tags are a bit funny to handle. But I was able to get a very good layout using DIV and CSS elements.

It works well in Firefox and even in Konqueror.

Let me know when you publish, I'd like to see it. I haven't gotten away from using tables yet and the prospect of doing so sounds like a good idea!

I'll keep you posted on this. I really haven't got any content yet, but once I do, I'll publish it on my site. Just keep watch my signature. ;)

But if you want to see a XHTML tableless design site for now, try this:
(found it on another forum)
http://www.exoticpublishing.com/

This site just had two errors in the XHTML validation process, but I guess they are quite small problems easily fixable. One wrongly typed attribute (capitals) and a missing 'alt' attribute on a <img> tag.

It really bugged me when my computer teacher taught HTML as html, not XHTML. I mean, if you are going to be teaching, say, video-editing, you would go digital, not analog. (ARRGH analog!) I hope schools pick up on teaching XHTML- standards are important.

It was funny when I would help my classmates, my code was obvious in lower case, their's was all upper case! :D

titanium_geek

I got some excellent results with XHTML today. But of course, I am still not totally comfortable using <DIV> tags and CSS elements which control them. However, it seems a much, much better way than tables because you avoid so much typing and repeating formatting instructions.

Everything is stored in CSS and makes the resulting XHTML file look very neatly coded indeed!

Nice. :)

If you want a really good example of what you can do with valid XHTML and CSS, check out the CSS Zen Garden. It has a collection of style sheets that you can swap between to give the site a radically different look, all without changing a single line of HTML.

ADAHacker, that's a nice site. I am really excited about this CSS technology.

It will save developers a lot of hours of time to separate formatting from content which is what XML is all about in any case. XHTML just implements specific DTDs. It's a great technology, I must say.