Having read about HTML5 support in JSF 2.2, I was surprised to find the same XHTML doctype as in previous Facelets versions in the template file created with a new web application in Netbeans. The only difference is that the HTML tag reads in JSF 2.2:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:h="http://xmlns.jcp.org/jsf/html">
, rather than as follows in older JSF versions:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:h="http://java.sun.com/jsf/html">
It seems a bit wrong to keep using XHTML with the promise of HTML5 in mind. I only have the option to use 2.2 if I choose it from "registered libraries" instead of "server library". Does this affect the way the framework version is applied to the project?
Is Facelets too much dependent on XHTML to support HTML5?
It seems that you misunderstood the purpose of XHTML like as many people during the XHTML overhype a couple of years ago. Long story short: check our XHTML wiki page. Carefully read it. In a nutshell, Facelets absolutely doesn't care about the doctype being used in the generated HTML output. You can perfectly fine declare a HTML5 doctype in a Facelets template.
It's indeed unfortunate that Netbeans by default prepares the document with XHTML doctype while HTML5 is these days the recommended doctype. I don't do Netbeans, but in Eclipse you can easily edit those templates and even create your own. You can just replace the whole XHTML doctype by a HTML5 one. You can find/create those templates via Web » HTML Files » Editor » Templates in IDE prefs.
Please note that the HTML5 support in JSF 2.2 has got nothing to do with being able to support specifically the HTML5 doctype. On the contrary, this is supported on all JSF versions, even when legacy JSP is being used. JSP and Facelets are view technologies which allows you to generate HTML output, which can perfectly fine be HTML5 as good. This is also elaborated in the following closely related answer: Is it possible to use JSF+Facelets with HTML 4/5?
Instead, the HTML5 support in JSF 2.2 covers the possibility to define custom JSF component attributes and turning custom HTML elements into JSF components. This was not possible in JSF 2.1 and before. Any custom JSF component attributes (including the HTML5-recommended data-xxx attributes) were simply ignored by the default JSF renderers. See also the following related answer: Custom HTML tag attributes are not rendered by JSF. In JSF 2.2 you can easily specify custom attributes by the new http://xmlns.jcp.org/jsf/passthrough namespace as follows:
<html ... xmlns:a="http://xmlns.jcp.org/jsf/passthrough">
...
<h:inputText ... a:autocorrect="off" />
This will end up in the by <h:inputText> unsupported attribute autocorrect to actually be included in the generated HTML output. Note that I use a XML namespace prefix of a ("attribute") instead of p as shown in the Java EE tutorial, as it would otherwise clash with default XML namespace prefix p of PrimeFaces.
Turning custom HTML elements (including HTML5 elements) into JSF components is a matter of specifying a jsf attribute such as jsf:id.
<html ... xmlns:jsf="http://xmlns.jcp.org/jsf">
...
<header jsf:id="header">...</header>
<main jsf:id="main">...</main>
<footer jsf:id="footer">...</footer>
Those will under the covers be turned into UIPanel (like as <h:panelGroup>). And yes, they are referencable in e.g. <f:ajax render>.
In other words, "HTML5 support" is just again another buzzword for "Custom attribute support".
I've read around that XHTML 4.01 does not has the data- attribute. Unfortunately my class calls for the use of XHTML. I need to embed a twitter widget and it works however the site won't validate.
a class="twitter-timeline" href="https://twitter.com/row2k" data-widget-id="654806159795183617">Tweets by #row2k</a>
Can anyone help assign the "data-widget-id" another way so that the widget will run as well as validate?
If you're not using any entity references such as (or if you can replace them all by numeric references like ), you can use the <!DOCTYPE html> header and then it will work AND validate.
By the way, there is no such thing as XHTML 4.01; You meant XHTML 1.0 surely, the equivalent of HTML 4.01.
I have a .NET Master page with an XHTML DTD: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional ... >.
My .NET .ascx input controls need to start using the HTML5 placeholder attribute. It's my understanding that browsers won't recognize placeholder unless the HTML5 DTD is used: <!DOCTYPE html>.
I'm leery about simply changing the Master page to use the HTML5 doctype. I've heard that the HTML5 spec is supposed to backwards support XHTML markup, but I'm wondering about any other adverse side-effects with this kind of blanket change. Does anyone have insight regarding this?
Note: Several web apps use the Master page so it would be a widespread change.
HTML5 is designed to be backwards compatible with XHTML and HTML so developers can easily migrate.
The only effect for you will be that the browser will not enforce the strict XHTML rules.
You can still follow the XHTML rules however but you aren't forced to.
So you can safely edit your doctype to the HTML5 doctype!
I am doing one project in asp .net.Its completed,then the same project will be done in html5. How to convert the .aspx pages and master pages to html 5? Is it possible?If any one know please tell me.
You can technically make the page HTML5 by changing the doctype...
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head runat="server">
<meta charset="utf-8" />
It is also recommended that you specify a lang attribute on the html tag and include the meta tag to define your character set.
This won't give you instant HTML5 semantics, but this is essentially step one. Using the right elements for the right kinds of content will be down to you, for example deciding when to use header, article, section, footer instead of plain div elements and so on.
You should also be able to select "DOCTYPE:HTML5" from the toolbar in Visual Studio - I don't know what version you are using, but I think in the previous version you could download a HTML5 language extension, I'm pretty sure it is included by default in Visual Studio 2012.
what you can do... if I understand your question correctly is, rightclick and say view page source and copy your html or install google chrome and the on each page you can go rightclick and inspect element. you can copy and paste the html of each page including the masterpage content. Its a sloppy way but will work if you only want the html
One of the way that i think you can do is to use http://modernizr.com/ kind of framework to switch between html5 and normal html easily .
It seems that HTML 5 is going to be supported (partially) by Firefox 3.1 and other browsers. It is adding support for video and audio as tags, but these are new tags that XHTML 1.0 Transitional does not recognize. What is the behavior supposed to be if I use a new HTML 5 tag in a future version of Firefox but use the DTD for XHTML? And what if I mix HTML 5 markup with XHTML 1.0 Trans?
This is getting confusing. Why didn't they just add these tags to XHTML? How do we support both XHTML and HTML 5?
Video on HTML 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIxDJof7xxQ
HTML5 is so much easier to write than XHTML 1.0.
You don't have to manually declare the "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" namespace.
You don't have to add type attributes to script and style elements (they default to text/javascript and text/css).
You don't have to use a long doctype where the browser just ignores most of it. You must use <!DOCTYPE html>, which is easy to remember.
You don't have a choice to include or not include a dtd uri in the doctype and you don't have a choice between transitional and strict. You just have a strict doctype that invokes full standards mode. That way, you don't have to worry about accidentally being in Almost standards mode or Quirks mode.
The charset declaration is much simpler. It's just <meta charset="utf-8">.
If you find it confusing to write void elements as <name>, you can use <name/>, if you want.
HTML5 has a really good validator at http://validator.nu/. The validator isn't bound by a crappy DTD that can't express all the rules.
You don't have to add //<![CDATA etc. in inline scripts or stylesheets (in certain situations) to validate.
You can use embed if needed.
Just syntax-wise, when you use HTML5, you end up with cleaner, easier to read markup that always invokes standards mode. When you use XHTML 1.0 (served as text/html), you're specifying a bunch of crud (in order to validate against a crappy dtd) that the browser will do automatically.
Myths and misconceptions abound in this thread.
XHTML 1.0 is older than HTML 5. It cannot use any new vocabulary. Indeed, its main selling point was that it uses exactly the same vocabulary as HTML 4.01.
There will be no XHTML 1.2 - most probably. And it is not needed. XHTML 5 is the XML serialization of HTML 5. Identical vocabulary, different parsing rules.
HTML has never been treated as true SGML in browsers. No browser has ever implemented an SGML-compliant parser. HTML 5 will make this fact into a rule and the HTML serialization will follow todays de facto standard. One could perhaps say that it is "SGML-ish".
As it has been stated, the DTD serves exactly one purpose IN BROWSERS, and that is to distinguish between standards compliance mode and quirks mode. Thus it affects only styling and scripting. If you are using frames on a page with astrict doctype, they will render just fine. As will <embed> and even <marquee> - even though the latter is an abomination and the former not in any current standard. It is part of HTML 5, though.
Video and audio can be used regardless of serialization, XML or HTML. they are part of both HTML 5 and XHTML 5. Once the parsing stage is over a browser will have constructed an internal DOM of the document. That DOM will be for all practical purposes the same regardless of serialization. And yes, XHTML sent with text/html is still normal html, regardless of doctype.
Well, generally speaking HTML is SGML and XHTML is expressed in XML. Because of that, creating XHTML is connected with more restrictions (in the form of markup) than HTML is. (SGML-based versus XML-based HTML)
As mentioned on Wikipedia, HTML 5 will also have a XHTML variant (XHTML 5).
Rule of thumb: You should always use valid markup. That also means that you should not use the mentioned <video> or <audio> tags in XHTML 1.0 Transitional, as those are not an element of that specification. If you really need to use those tags (which I highly doubt), then you should make sure that you use the HTML 5/XHTML 5 DTD in order to specify that your document is in that DOCTYPE.
Using HTML 5 or XHTML 5 in the given state of the implementation (AFAIK, the standard is not even settled, yet, correct?) could be counter-productive, as almost all users may not see the website rendered correclty anyways.
Edit 2013:
Because of the recent downvotes and since this accepted answer cannot be deleted (by me), I would like to add that the support and standardization process of HTML5 is nowadays totally different to what it was when I wrote this answer five years ago. Since most major browsers support most parts of the HTML5 draft and because a lot of stuff can be fixed with polyfills in older browsers, I mainly use HTML5 now.
You might be looking at the problem the wrong way because the relationship to XHTML 1.x section, HTML 5 states:
"This specification is intended to replace XHTML 1.0 as the normative definition of the XML serialization of the HTML vocabulary."
Now that language is controversial (the XHTML 2 WG has disputed it and the HTML WG is trying to resolve the differences...) but that's where we stand right now.
A couple of notes:
HTML 5 includes an XML serialization known as XHTML 5, the spec explains the differences if you're into nitty gritty details
HTML is not SGML. Henri Sivonen has done a great write up on the history of HTML parsing
As of this time (it has been a topic of debate several times), there won't be a DTD for HTML/XHTML 5 -- the Conformance Requirements section of the spec explains why a DTD isn't suitable for defining the HTML language. The HTML 5 validator also contains a wealth of information on this topic (including RELAX NG schemas for HTML5)
Keep in mind that doctypes only serve one purpose in browsers: switch between quirks, almost standards and standards mode. Therefore, using <video> and <audio> will work with any doctype declaration. IMO, using an XHTML doctype is quite useless, as every page you send with text/html MIME type is parsed as (tag-soup) HTML anyways. I suggest using the HTML5 doctype (<!doctype html>), as it is easier to remember and doesn't force you in XML syntax without a reason.
Why didn't they just add these tags to
XHTML?
They actually did, there is an XML serialization of HTML 5 (XHTML5). To use this, you have to send your pages with an XML MIME type, such as application/xhtml+xml. This is not (yet) supported by IE, though.
What is the behavior supposed to be if
I use a new HTML 5 tag in a future
version of Firefox but use the DTD for
XHTML?
And what if I mix HTML 5 markup with
XHTML 1.0 Trans?
If your markup isn't implemented as part of your chosen DTD - then logically, that markup shouldn't be followed. But browser implementations aren't always strictly logical.
Why didn't they just add these tags to
XHTML? How do we support both XHTML
and HTML 5?
xHTML is not better than HTML, but it's more suited to some applications. One of the main benefits of xHTML is that it can be transformed into different formats using XSLT. For example, you could use XSLT to automatically transform xHTML into an RSS feed or another XML format.
You don't need to support both formats - weigh up the benefits/drawbacks for each with your project's requirements. HTML 5 probably won't be standard for quite some time.
(X)HTML5 is just the next version. You should be using XHTML1.1 until XHTML5 is well-supported.
You probably should not use the backwards-compatability SGML profile of HTML5. It makes things harder for scrapers and small parsers.
Your doctype will tell the browser whether you're using HTML5 or XHTML. You can't just shove a tag from one doctype into a document of another doctype and expect it to work.
Without a doctype, it's all just tag soup anyway.
Don't use things like video/audio tags when 99% of people won't be able to view it properly on their browser. For either of these two examples I'd suggest using FLV.
As far as why they don't add it to XHTML... firstly 1.0 isn't the most recent version, 1.1 was released a while ago.
Eventually things get standardized and we'll see these types of tags in both standards, but for now just do what you can to ensure the most amount of people can view your content.