Tigdh Glesain wrote: > Hallo Folks, > > I am just a little foncused. This may seem like an 'off-topic' > subject, but I think I'm correct in saying it effects the way in > which we code our CSS to a degree. If this topic has been covered > before, then I apologise and would ask for a pointer towards the > resource. > > This article, http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of- > xhtml#what_is_xhtml which was found while researching the the 3px IE > bug has caused me to ponder, does this author have a point that is > worthy of heeding. > > If I am writing good XHTML markup and 'matching' my css to a standard > on par with my markup, am I being led down a path that may become a > repeat of the "forked-code wars" of the late 1990s, et al? > > Am I worrying unnecessarily? Do any of have any 'jeez' to go with my > 'whine'? (O: > > Can a more experienced head than mine soothe my troubled mind... > > Ta!
Hi Tigdh Indeed off topic and drifting into holy war territory in ways of markup. What is said on the Webdeout site is just one side of the xhtml vs html debate. To better understand the problem please read this entertaining article. http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.html Most of my own css pages are coded in valid xhtml (which I prefer) and will pass the xml treatment in xml compliant browsers, which are currently used by only about 28% of web users. 71% of web users have no chance of viewing these pages as xml since they use IE, so your mention of the "forked-code wars" between browsers is valid. Lastly and concerning css, there is no difference in how you code the css and the effects or rendering in xml compliant browsers. Kind Regards, Alan http://css-class.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
