Nick Fitzsimons wrote: > On the other hand, browser support is fairly restricted and can > be buggy, especially if you plan to use any DOM Scripting/Ajax > type stuff.
Well, yes, but it's a lot better than XHTML 2 support ;) > For real-world usage, you're better off doing the > transformation on the server. Yes, for now. But wouldn't it be easier for all us if the browsers just improved their handling of xml, instead of worrying about html5 and xhtml2? BTW, W3Schools has a basic introduction: http://w3schools.com/ cheers, Geoff ============================================================================== The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments ============================================================================== ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
