HTML is a stricter and cleaner version of XHTML. Is it true or false?

Question

HTML is a stricter and cleaner version of XHTML. Is it true or false?

Answer 1

False.

It is commonly held that XHTML is a stricter and cleaner version of HTML ... but that's quite debatable.

Answer 2

False. It is the exact opposite, actually. HTML has thus far been a very lazy markup language. Quotes or no quotes, uppercase or lowercase, none of it really mattered before. There are a couple of versions of each, such as Transitional (lazy) and Strict (adhering to specific w3 rules). In Strict XHTML, everything must be lowercase, quotes must be used, trailing slashes in inline elements, etc. But at the same time I think only using it that way can cause cleanliness. If you still choose to code half uppercase, half lowercase, half quoted, half unquoted, then it will still be ugly.

Answer 3

It's not about stricter or cleaner. It's about how well a page of code adheres to the W3C specification for the HTML version the page claims to use in its DTD.

Answer 4

a million. you very almost threw the e book jointly as examining Order of the Phoenix via fact of Umbridge's strikes fake 2. most of the failings Draco reported approximately Harry have been real real 3. Harry could be somebody you will get alongside with fake ( I in simple terms don't have the endurance for that. =/ ) 4. with out Luna, the books does no longer be a similar real 5. Hermione aggravated you presently and returned real 6. You felt undesirable for Bellatrix fake 7. You cheered whilst Voldemort died real 8. Ron Weasley is large! real

Answer 5

I don't think there's really that much of a difference. "Supposedly" XHTML is cleaner, but it all depends on who's writing the code.

Answer 6

There is no clear point stating which is strict, but many websites still use HTML like http://www.httpguru.com and many big websites have turned to XHTML.

I would say better w3.org answer the question.