Victor Engmark wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> You're saying that the benefits listed in my email earlier don't make
> sense? In what way?.
They are not technical but supposed strategic benefits,
http://www.nypl.org/styleguide/xhtml/benefits.html
For me, they are very real benefits. I've been using XHTML 1.1 for years.
> Again good HTML is as logical and structural as XHTML.
So, good for HTML.
Hold on. You're quoting yourself now, not me.
> HTML gives you lots of possibilities to mess up the tree structure of the
> document,
We should use the validator any way.
My point was that you can have
messier valid HTML than valid XHTML. <br>, <BR>, <Br>, <br/>, <BR/> and <Br/> are valid in HTML, only <br/> in XHTML. <p>text</p> and <p>text<p>text are valid in HTML, only <p>text</p><p>text</p> in XHTML. <body><p><ul><li><p>text</ul></body>
is valid HTML 4.01 strict (yes, I validated it). That is just
messy.
> making it slow to parse,
What is a millisecond more?
If you're willing to build a site with the goal of having hundreds or thousands of users with that attitude, this discussion is moot. Besides, I'm not talking about milliseconds. The fastest I could get the
GNU Herds front page to load, in beta, on a Sunday evening, is 0.765 seconds (measured with Fasterfox, after reloading some 20 times). That page doesn't even use any (non-trivial) _javascript_. The
Update person data page was even slower - I couldn't get it below 2 seconds. Unless the code scales brilliantly (leaving the browser as the only bottleneck), you'll lose a lot of potential users.