I also use HTML instead of XHTML where appropriate, HTML will be around for a long time still. But do you also have a copy of VisiCalc kicking around to open ancient spreadsheets? The 2.0 browsers are a decade old, I've never even seen one.
Lynx should (and does) keep up with modern standards, and I believe that web designers are moving toward more Lynx-friendly practices. If you need proof hit the new Disney Store UK or Chevrolet websites with Lynx: they're beautiful! http://disneystore-shopping.disney.co.uk/store/Home.aspx http://www.chevrolet.com/ You're right in that XHTML has yet to prove itself, however. I'm excited to see where the web will be in another decade. - whiteinge On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:16:21 -0800, Walter Ian Kaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 07:29p -0700 01/31/2005, Seth House didst inscribe upon an > electronic papyrus: > > >On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:23:56 -0800, Walter Ian Kaye > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 09:53p +0000 01/30/2005, Thorsten Glaser didst inscribe upon an > > > electronic papyrus: > > > > > > > and be XHTML/1.1 compliant. > > > > > > Screw xhtml. <g> I'm sticking with HTML, just like I stick with Lynx. > > :-) > > > I expect both to outlive me. ;) > > > >You meant that tongue-in-cheek, I know. > > Actually I was serious; the smilies were an attempt to compensate for > my language. ;) Ah, then I suppose my failure to notice the bad language betrays my own poor manners. ;-) > > In fact, I have no intention of using xhtml for any of my Web sites. > I consider it a designed-by-committee experiment for which I have yet > to see any definitive proof that it is backward compatible with all > HTML 2.0 browsers. What I have seen are plenty of sites which use a > mixture of xhtml and html on the same page, which is... well, no > point in trying to label that situation except to say that it's not > any improvement, and since HTML is here to stay and is not about to > be "turned off" (who's gonna rewrite millions of HTML pages or cut > off access to them?), I'm quite happy to stay with it. (Whew, run-on > sentence.) > > > >I see the broad adoption of > >XHTML as a boon for Lynx since it facilitates more attention payed to > >document structure and the probable end of using tables for layout (as > >we've discussed > >(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lynx-dev/2005-01/msg00123.html)). > > Maybe when pigs fly. Inertia is powerful stuff. > Existing documents don't magically change. People have better things > to do with their time than continually recoding documents to match > the markup language du jour, to say nothing of documents saved at > archive.org whose original Web sites and authors have expired. Heck, > even within XHTML circles there's already been flap about backward > compatibility amongst versions of XHTML. No thanks, I'm sticking with > HTML; leave the moving targets for people who don't need a life. > > > -boo > > _______________________________________________ > Lynx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev > _______________________________________________ Lynx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev
