From: Peter Lind > On 9 February 2011 14:57, Bob McConnell <rvm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Al >> >>> On 2/8/2011 4:58 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Just wanted to say thanks to those that helped me get through my >> first PHP >>>> project (over the last month). >>>> >>>> As is with much of the work we server-side language people do, the >> back-end >>>> (non-public) side of this site is perhaps the more interesting. >>>> >>> >>> Suggestion: Design for XHTML 1.1. It really doesn't require any >> significant >>> additional effort and you'll already be current when it becomes the >> W3C >>> standard. I like it because it forces me to create better, cleaner >> html code. >> >> You should also use the HTML Validator plug-in for Firefox to make sure >> you are producing valid XHTML. That makes it so much easier to find >> those invisible problems. I can't count how many times it has pointed >> right at a logic flaw in my code. > > Or go with the more likely candidate for a future html standard: html > 5. Has the added benefit of easing you in to the new tags that will be > used as standard in a few years but won't be in xhtml. I don't believe HTML 5 will ever be completed. Microsoft is working hard behind the scenes to block it unless it only allows their codec's behind the video and canvas tags. (Their efforts are very reminiscent of their sabotage of ISO with the OOXML specification.) From a recent announcement(*), it appears that even the committee has given up ever having a usable consensus, but will accept whatever the browser developers want to implement even if they are incompatible with other browsers. That's not a standard. Bob McConnell (*) <http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5> -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
