> How many of you are developing sites in XHTML these days? We don't unless there is a specific reason we need content in XML.
> Is it worth the extra effort? Not for it's own sake. IMHO aiming for valid HTML 4.01 is the best bet. - As someone else pointed out - XHTML served as text/html gets parsed as tag soup anyway. So your browser is ignoring the fact that it is XML. - Invalid XHTML/XML will make verity (almost) silently barf. This is one example of how broken XHTML is far more dangerous than broken HTML - SEO doesn't come into it to it. Any major spider will parse anything that it out there in enough volume. - I think the W3C HTML working group has lost the plot. XHTML 2 is never going to go main stream, so XHTML could well be a dead end. Have a look at whatwg.org and HTML5 instead - I think it's much more likely to succeed. Cheers Mark On 12/6/06, Ryan Sabir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hey all, > > How many of you are developing sites in XHTML these days? Is it worth the > extra effort? > > thanks. > > > > Ryan Sabir > Technical Director > > p: (02) 9274 8030 > f: (02) 9274 8099 > m: 0411 512 454 > w: www.newgency.com Newgency Pty Ltd > Web | Multimedia | eMarketing > > 224 Riley St > Surry Hills NSW 2010 > Sydney, Australia > > > > -- Mark Stanton Gruden Pty Ltd http://www.gruden.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
