On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
Most of his pages are logically readable in Lynx as a fact, an
achievement worth mentioning in it self these days.
Indeed.
Still you are right of course; he did not have to go to XHTML1.1 to
create what he has done, straight HTML4.01 would have been enough and
the CSS would have worked just as good.
In my role as the Original Poster ;-) , having asked the question
without offering any answers, I suppose I ought to expose my own
opinions.
I thought the styles were a treasure-house of ideas, and the practical
results I rated as impressive. I was initially upset by the
undersized fonts, relative (of course) to my chosen default (a topic
on which some of us have rather strongly held opinions), but once I'd
got over that, and fretted somewhat over the rather large number of
stylesheets that were involved, I certainly warmed to the attention to
detail which the author had put in.
Like other commentators, I couldn't see any point in declaring
XHTML/1.1 (in fact, according to the W3C it would seem to be wrong to
advertise XHTML/1.1 and to serve it out as text/html at all! Maybe
they'll get their trademark lawyers to send out threatening letters in
due course). But this is fortunately irrelevant to the stylesheets
aspect of the matter.
(Myself, I still can't see the point in XHTML/1.0 sent out under the
provisions of Appendix C, since HTML/4.01 is defined to be
functionally equivalent - and is better supported by browsers. But
fortunately, that's not the issue here, so I suppose it would be
better to rule it OT for the group - OK?)
