Regarding the advice to use HTML instead of XHTML: isn't this a bit reckless? My understanding is that support for HTML will soon disappear; if you rely on this when browser development is heading so decidedly away from it, don't you risk creating pages which will be unreadable by most browsers in a couple of years? I've read that Microsoft are keen to support CSS 2 with the next release of IE, so problems you're having with it now may soon be a thing of the past.
I've found the transitional doctype is very forgiving, as it basically allows you to use the deprecated HTML elements while you get to grips with XHTML. Is this really not a useful solution? Best wishes, Paula On 10/28/05, david <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Christian Montoya wrote: > >>I'd strongly advise against using XHTML > > > > Really? I detest. HTML 4.01 is so last season. > > Yup, and it's been around so long that browser support is known and > predictable. > > In this business, newer frequently just means newer and more unknown > bugs ... ;-) > > -- > David > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > authenticity, honesty, community > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
