Per Jessen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]; Monday, January 06, 2003 4:21 PM): > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:45:07 +0000 (GMT), Stephen Turner wrote:
>>Anyway, what's wrong with HTML 2.0 (with CSS)? > Nothing really - I was merely looking at some improvements, and found > HTML2.0 to be a bit of a straight-jacket :-) > If I were to replace HTML 2.0 with XHTML 1.1, would anyone really have > a problem ? ie. would it prevent anyone from upgrading to a release with > only XHTML output ? FWIW, I chose XHTML as the default output of Report Magic 2.0 in 2000 and, while it supports HTML 3.2, I have not heard of anyone using it. At this point most web designers I know use XHTML and CSS. Look at any web browser stats and you will see that most are version 5, 6 or 7 of major browsers. -- Jeremy Wadsack Wadsack-Allen Digital Group +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this | mailing list, go to | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html | | List archives are available at | http://www.mail-archive.com/analog-help@lists.isite.net/ | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/ | http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7 +------------------------------------------------------------------------
