Not to disagree with anyone here, and perhaps one of our well-versed members will correct me, but isn't entification marked as "recommended" in HTML 4.01?
<cite>http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/charset.html#h-5.3.2</cite>
HTML 4.01 does not output valid XML, and while entification is considered ideal, Taco isn't actually breaking the rules set for his chosen doctype.
I personally believe it's good form to use anything that reduces code-debt. By dealing with this now, you won't have to worry about it if/when you move up to xml-based doctypes.
-Ben
Peter Firminger wrote:
Absolutely, one of the big ones in designing a CMS (or blog) or making sure a static site is standards compliant (see
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdevelopment.tacofleur.com%2Findex%2Fmethodology%2F
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*****************************************************
