[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS -- Later XHTML if convenient?
From: |
Davi Leal |
Subject: |
Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS -- Later XHTML if convenient? |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:08:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.5 |
David Paleino wrote:
> Yes, it's better also IMO to include all the styled into an external
> CSS, without repeating the same styles for all TDs and tables.
> Victor Engmark wrote:
> > Retrofit your Web pages for wireless compatibility
> > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/wireless/library/wi-css/
Victor, I am just quoting your article:
"If you're already coding your Web pages using ( _HTML 4.01 Strict_ or XHTML )
and styling them with CSS, then you've done more than half of the work of
making them accessible to wireless devices. ..."
"If you're serious about supporting wireless devices, you need to be using at
least HTML 4.01 Strict ... Getting to HTML 4.01 Strict forces you to drop any
presentation in your HTML in favor of CSS, which is the first step to good,
flexible Web design."
"CSS is also essential if you want to build Web apps that easily support
wireless devices, because you can apply one CSS set of rules for Web browsers
and __another__ for mobile devices."
"As an additional bonus, more and more wireless devices are providing support
for XHTML. While that doesn't necessarily mean that these devices won't
support HTML 4.01 Strict,"
"Segregate your stylesheets into logical groupings:"
gh-all.css
one for browsers, gh-screen.css
one for wireless devices, gh-handheld.css
one for printing, gh-print.css
...
"Assign stylesheets to different viewers"
"Adding the media attribute to the link element allows you
to indicate the viewer type to be assigned to each stylesheet."
Davi
- Re: Proposal: switching from HTML 4.0 to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, (continued)
- Re: Proposal: switching from HTML 4.0 to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/21
- Re: Proposal: switching from HTML 4.0 to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, David Paleino, 2007/02/21
- HTML vs XHTML, Davi Leal, 2007/02/24
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, David Paleino, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, David Paleino, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, David Paleino, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS -- Later XHTML if convenient?,
Davi Leal <=
- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS -- Later XHTML if convenient?, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS -- Later XHTML if convenient?, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/25
- Re: The team have XHTML experience, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, MJ Ray, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/25
- Re: CVS branch for XHTML ?, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: CVS branch for XHTML ?, David Paleino, 2007/02/25
- Re: CVS branch, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: The CVS branch is right, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25