On 28/10/05, Paula Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regarding the advice to use HTML instead of XHTML: isn't this a bit > reckless?
Not really... > My understanding is that support for HTML will soon > disappear; Whatever gave you that idea? There is so much HTML (and invalid XHTML) out there that it would be suicide for a browser to stop supporting it. > if you rely on this when browser development is heading so > decidedly away from it IE 7 isn't going to support XHTML, GoogleBot currently doesn't support XHTML. The Mozilla project recommend HTML 4.01 Strict. > don't you risk creating pages which will be > unreadable by most browsers in a couple of years? Maybe in a couple of decades, by which time XHTML 1.0 is likely to be obsolete too. Besides, transforming HTML into XHTML programatically is trivial. > 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. Really really not. The problems with XHTML can be basically summed up as: (a) XHTML as text/html is a joke and depends on browsers implementing HTML incorrectly in the first place (most do, but there are exceptions) (b) XHTML as application/xhtml+xml enjoys very little support. > 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? It would be far more useful to get to grips with not using the deprecated HTML elements then getting to grips with XHTML. -- David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk><http://blog.dorward.me.uk> ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
