In article <cKqdnfzW-uftDh_V4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
Quote:
In comp.infosystems.
www.authoring.html, Denis McMahon wrote:
>
Quote:
So, the choice is the mature and widely supported html 4.01,
a stepping stone (xhtml 1.0), or the not fully supported xhtml 1.1.
I'm inclined to go for html 4.01 strict, can anyone convince me
that >this is the wrong decision at the moment?
>
Of the three choices you have presented, I would say that
html 4.01 strict is the best choice, but that's like saying
that, of the Three Stooges, Curly Joe is the *intellectual*
Stooge...
In fact, it is nothing like this at all. There are much more convincing
arguments that most website authors would be better off sticking to 4.01
for now than the others than that one of Larry, Moe and Curly was more
of one thing than another.
--
dorayme
