cwdjrxyz wrote:
Quote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
>In my personal opinion, not only should you use html 4.01 strict,
>but you should be very skeptical about the xhtml 1.0 --xhtml 1.1
>path. I myself started down that path (my webpage is xhtml 1.0)
>but on my next major revision I intend to start on a different
>path; html 4.01 strict --html 5.
Quote:
>The problem with perhaps over 99% of all flavors of xhtml pages is
>that , even if the code valadates completely, the author then serves
>the page as html. In that case all of the special xhtml code is just
>useless, and one would better write the page as html 4.01 strict
Quote:
>When you set your server to serve any flavor of xhtml using the proper
>mime type application/xhtml+xml the page is parsed as xml because the
>xml part of xhtml is very strict.
Quote:
>When you serve xhtml correctly, no IE browser up to and
>including IE7 can view the page. It will be interesting to see if IE8
>on the final release can support application/xhtml+xml.
>
>You can serve a page as true xhtml, even 1.1, on most modern browsers
>other than IE. However, if you want IE browsers to view the page you
>have to do some tricks to get something to IE that it can understand.
HTML 5 has solved the above probem. See the following web page:
HTML 5, one vocabulary, two serializations
http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html
--
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>