Matthew Burgess wrote: > Reading > http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm just recently was > very enlightening! I'm not proposing we drop the use of XHTML just yet, > especially considering the few reports we've had of broken rendering, > but at least it's something to consider when we do get such reports.
I looked at the reference and disagree strongly. It is true that xhtml transitional allows most of the quirks of html, but xhtml strict does not. The author of the page wants to regress to the wild west where the most sloppy code is allowed. His attitude is that if xhtml is not perfect we might as well use html 2.0. Bull****. I have taught "html" and I always required my students to use xhtml strict and validate all their assignments. Proper use of xhtml strict and css provides a *standard* way of doing things. The authors of browsers have to jump through a *lot* of hoops to make the sloppy coding of most sites, generally produced by generators written in the last century, to look anywhere close to right. This is the main reason most graphical browsers have so much bloat. One of the problems today is that I still can't find a decent xhtml textbook. All the ones I see use xhtml trnasitional. If you are using that, I agree: why bother? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
