[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 18:26:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.5 |
Victor Engmark wrote:
> So there's three major open source organizations which use XHTML, but none
> of them know what they're doing, because "XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 do not provide
> benefits"? There are many other arguments for and against XHTML on other
> sites:
I repeat again:
"XHTML benefits?. Actually none of those benefits make particular sense.
XHTML is no more accessible than well written HTML. Most mobile devices can
handle HTML just fine. Again good HTML is as logical and structural as XHTML.
Admittedly the XHTML might have merit, but only if you're considering
embedding other XML directly in the markup such as SVG or MathML, but most
browsers do not support that!."
> HTML or XHTML? http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/11/02/html-or-xhtml/
Victor, I am just quoting your article:
"Strict or Transitional?. Definitely strict."
"‘application/xhtml+XML’ SHOULD be used for serving XHTML documents to XHTML
user agents."
"Which means that web browsers will not render your pages as XHTML, but rather
as HTML ..."
"scripting will not work when sent as application/xhtml+XML"
"My personal opinion is that the most important thing is that you choose a
strict doctype, be it _HTML_ or XHTML.
*** WWWarning:::
If you want to use XHTML and serve it as text/html, make sure that you don’t
intentionally have code that would break when served as
application/xhtml+XML. .. and go the extra mile to make sure it is indeed
well-formed."
> Retrofit your Web pages for wireless compatibility
> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/wireless/library/wi-css/
Replied on the other email.
> 55 Reasons to Design in XHTML/CSS http://www.khmerang.com/index.php?p=106
[...]
> 21. # Your sites are automatically accessible to all kinds of browsers
This 21 point is false as stated above by the WWWarning of the article _you_
has quoted in your previous reply.
For these 55 reasons, some are obvious or irrelevant.
If you insist, I propose try XHTML in a CVS branch.
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, 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, 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?, 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
- Re: CVS branch for XHTML ?, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/25