In (X)HTML5, the a element’s href attribute
[…] must have a value that is a valid URL potentially surrounded by spaces.
As the anchor suggests, it may contain leading and trailing spaces.
The linked section makes clear that these spaces will be stripped:
[…] the user agent must remove all space characters that are at the start or end of the string […]...
The XHTML doctype is for XHTML web pages and, unless you are serving your page as application/xhtml+xml, it ain't XHTML. I'm betting you're not doing that.
Writing HTML as XHTML is called "tag soup" and browsers will ignore what you wrote and do the best they can with it cause it won't make sense to the HTML parser. So that's a waste of time.
This means we will have some pages in HTML 5 and others in XHTML at
the same moment.
Having some pages in your site marked up with HTML5 and some in XHTML should not be a factor in your site's ranking since search engines crawl and index pages individually.
Just changing from XHTML to HTML 5 won't be an issue or make a difference. If you change your markup you will affect your rankings as semantic markup is a ranking factor. So if your markup is different it stands to reason your rankings may be different.
No one can say if it will be helpful or harmful as we have no idea what changes you will be making or if ...
There is clearly no problem about it. Every request returns one document that has its own independent doctype. This is not affecting any other sites.
According to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10380346/css-styles-not-applied-properly-if-use-doctype different doctypes could define different default CSS property values of specific (meta) elements. So ...
Doctype and Microdata shouldn't create many problems. It's possible that it will throw IE into 'quirks' mode, but you will probably be fine.
The problem with HTML5 tags like header and article are that older browsers don't recognize them as block level elements. So if you are using them in that way at all you may be in for some layout surprises.
There are ...
You are correct, some older browsers like Internet Explorer 8 provide little to no support for HTML5 elements and other HTML5 features. There are online sites which can help you identify what's missing in IE 8 and older browsers, such as this one.
There are also open-source projects like this often-cited one, aimed at improving HTML5 compatibility for IE 8:
There is no reason to follow the advice to keep a low number of links per page. Here is a visualization of the number of links on the homepages of top 98 webpages. Very few have less than 100, and many have 500 or more. If the top websites don't limit the number of links, then you don't have to either. Google's "100 links per page" advice is very old. ...
Just think about usability.
Is your website well structured?
Is all parts of your website easily accessible?
Is page hierarchy logical and user friendly?
Do you unnecessarily sitewide link to the same pages of your site?
Does your site contain over excessive links on the page?
Are your anchors descriptive for visitors and not for SEO?
Tick all the right ...
If you mouse over the doctype you'll see that Firefox is rendering the page in "Almost standard mode".
The DOCTYPEs that will trigger "almost standards" mode are those which
The public identifier "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
The public identifier "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN"
The public identifier "-//W3C//DTD ...
Unfortunately, your question didn’t include the errors you saw in the SDTT. Both snippets don’t show any warnings/errors now. So I’m not sure what exactly the issue was, but I want to clear something up in case there is a misunderstanding.
The base element is a void element. Void elements don’t have an end tag, and so they can’t have any ...
Please, check Joey's answer on this:
If your HTML is going to be regularly processed by automated tools
instead of being read by humans, then you might want to use XHTML
because of its more strict structure and being XML it's more easy to
parse (from an application standpoint. Not that XML is inherently easy
to parse, though).
You can see all the ...
There is a lot of problems with Gedcom file conversion and web hosting.
Have you checked your export file sources to see if codes match original source codes?
Export done with UT-8 coding? Tried HTML export opposed to XHTML?
Some software is proprietary and will only work on your machine and the proprietary server. You mentioned in the uploaded file ...
... it's showing as Content-Type: text/plain.
Providing the file has validated successfully as XHTML/XML then (assuming you are on an Apache web server) you can try adding the following to the .htaccess file in the document root (or your server config, if you have access):
AddType application/xhtml+xml xhtml
(I assume all modern browsers understand XHTML ...
It's completely OK to have HTML tags inside anchor tags when defining a clickable image in your webpage. The HTML code will be similar to the following:
<a href="http://example.com/path/to/link"><img src="someimage.jpg"></a>
My suggestion is to use only HTML tags that define output text or help define output text such as the IMG tag, and ...
Note: This snippet on its own is not doing what you want because you didn’t specify any vocabulary. Here in my answer I’ll use the schema: prefix as specified in the RDFa Core Initial Context. (Not needed if you have a vocab on a parent element.)
The author property takes one name. And it expects a Person (or Organization) type as value. And it doesn’t make ...
The data-* attributes are defined for (X)HTML5 only.
The Microdata attributes (itemscope, itemprop, …) are defined for (X)HTML5 only.
So when you switch to (X)HTML5, you can use both of these.
If you want to keep using XHTML 1.0, you could use class instead of data-* attributes, and RDFa instead of Microdata (which requires adjusting your DOCTYPE).
Generally google or other crawl engines won't execute your js code and so they don't load your meta tags. But still there are ways to make your site seo friendly.
There are two ways I know. One is Hijax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijax) and other is the html snapshot method using 'escaped url fragments' or some other method.
In my opinion, hijax is ...