Zahn Daltocli: >> I'd use XHTML 1.1 personally. HTML is outdated. HTML4.01 has been around for >> YEARS (Nearly a decade) with no signs of HTML5 being released (they say it >> will, but looks very doubtful). >> >> XHTML is more interesting to play with, is up-to-date and allows more >> functionality. >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ Scott van Looy: > Doesn't. XHTML 1 is simply HTML 4 rendered as XML - 1.1 doesn't have much > in the way of new features. That, plus: XHTML has to be served as if it were HTML, for the most prolific web browser in the world to render it. If served as XHTML, it will only download it. What's the point of writing XHTML pretending that it's HTML? And doing so brings in other strange compatibility issues (MSIE's quirks/not-quirks modes are bad enough, already, likewise for other browsers playing similar silly tricks). XHTML isn't html HTML. There are other clients which don't handle XHTML, and throwing XHTML at them means they'll interpret it differently, according to the rules of HTML. That extra slash, added to non-empty elements, actually has another meaning. e.g. XHTML <br/> is NOT the same as HTML <br>, it's really <br>> (a line break element, followed by a greater-than sign that should be visibly rendered). The original idea of XHTML would be that you (the author) either get it right, or the browser refuses to display it. At long last, we'd be rid of crap web sites, because the author would immediately see that they'd cocked it up. But, no. We're back to square one with browsers still doing the tag soup analysis of XHTML/HTML, so we've lost that benefit. They'll keep on producing crap. As it stands, XHTML is a waste of time, and a new set of problems. -- (This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
