I've noticed a lot of sites, SO included, use XHTML as their mark-up language and then fail to adhere to the spec. Just browsing the source for SO there are missing closing tags for paragraphs, invalid elements, etc.
So should tools (and developers) use the XHTML doctype if they are going to produce invalid mark up? And should browsers be more firm in their acceptance of poor mark-up?
And before anyone shouts hypocrite, my blog has one piece of invalid mark-up involving the captha (or it did the last time I checked) which involves styling the noscript tag.
Basically, a website that is XHTML compliant is compatible across devices and handles errors more easily.
XHTML was developed to make HTML more extensible and flexible to work with other data formats (such as XML). In addition, browsers ignore errors in HTML pages, and try to display the website even if it has some errors in the markup. So XHTML comes with a much stricter error handling.
Every other major browser supports real XHTML (i.e. sent with the application/xhtml+xml MIME type. My answer to you is "No, it's not harmful".
An XHTML document must have an XHTML DOCTYPE declaration. A complete list of all the XHTML Doctypes is found in our HTML Tags Reference. The <html>, <head>, <title>, and <body> elements must also be present, and the xmlns attribute in <html>, must specify the xml namespace for the document.
There are many reasons to use valid markup. My favorite is that it allows you to use validation as a form of regression testing, preventing the markup equivalent of "delta rot" from leading to real rendering problems once the errors reach some critical mass. And really, it's just plain sloppy to allow "lazy" errors like typos and mis-nested/unclosed tags to accumulate. Valid markup is one way to identify passionate programmers.
There's also the issue of debugging: valid markup also gives you a stable baseline from which to work on the inevitable cross-browser compatibility woes. No web developer who values his time should begin debugging browser compatibility problems without first ensuring that the markup is at least syntactically valid—and any other invalid markup should have a good reason for being there.
(Incidentally, stackoverflow.com fails both these tests, and suggestions to fix the problems were declined.)
All of that said, to answer your specific question, it's probably not worthwhile to use one of the XHTML doctypes unless you plan to produce valid (or at least well-formed) markup. XHTML's primary advantages are derived from the fact that XHTML is XML, allowing it to be processed and transformed by tools and technologies that work with XML. If you don't plan to make your XHTML well-formed XML, then there's little point in choosing that doctype. The latest HTML 4 spec will probably do everything you need, and it's much more forgiving.
We should always try to make it validate according to standards. We'll be sure that the website will display and work fine on current browsers AND future browsers.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With