>I've validated parts as HTML 4.01 via validator.w3c.org, >if anybody is willing to validate against XHTML >and send the relevant patches, that would be cool.
I'll happily contribute to this process. I am occupied at the moment (and for the next two months - coverting Shapeshifter (WYPUGs engine) to XHTML), but will supply patches after that time. Looking at the sites source now, it shouldn't be too hard as the HTML is pretty well written.
>p.s. if we make the site XHTML complient will it still properly render >in older user agents that aren't aware of XHTML?
Absolutely - if we use XHTML Transitional (as opposed to Strict). Strict forces too much reliance on CSS which still varies from browser to browser (although the vendors do seem to be leaning more towards standards these days - is it just me?).
Why do this?: Because XHTML goes a long way towards future-proofing the site (after all our hard work). Because XHTML is more cross-platform than HTML. Because XHTML encourages well-formed code.
Agreed :) I'll try and help out too. XHTML is very interesting, that's for sure.
Maybe we could go with Strict: there is almost only CSS used in this site, although I'm not sure if XHTML allows things like align="right", etc.
-- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
