On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 11:39 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> I'd suggest looking at xhtml
I wouldn't. There's numerous reasons why, here's just a few:
* The most prolific browser will not display XHTML served as
XHTML, it'll only do so if it pretends to be HTML. Other
browsers would be correct to behave the same way, as well.
* Lying that XHTML is HTML can bring about other problems, as the
requirements for empty tags to be written like <img/> has a
different meaning in HTML. Well behaved HTML clients can treat
that as they're supposed to, like <img>> (the second closing >
symbol will be displayed in the page).
* Writing broken XHTML to accomodate broken HTML clients means
that you're not writing "XHTML". You either write it correctly,
or it's in error. XML types of documents with errors aren't
supposed to be displayed at all.
* XHTML offers no real tangible benefits over HTML. It only
offers a new set of problems.
--
(Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
