On 6/7/05, Ben Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...>
> XHTML is useful to me because I can swap out the DOCTYPE and serve it
> as HTML, because it *is* HTML, giving it broad support today while
> giving it a predictable and flexible future. This is, essentially,
> XHTML-compatible HTML 4.01 Stri
Apparently the MIME/DOCTYPE argument of XHTML vs HTML has been going on
for a while, a bit out of my scope. I only have one argument to
contribute, which I don't believe I've seen before and may be of some
value.
On Jun 7, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Yes. Only critical thi
"Web standards should not be an exclusive club for those that do
everything right from the get go. We need to welcome everybody to the "club"
who makes an effort. And if they don't get it right the first time or the
second time, that is okay!"
Thank you i needed to hear that.
**
Rimantas wrote:
[quote]
Only critical thing for the Web standards is understanding them
[/quote]
That is a short-term view. If you want Web standards to become mainstream, they
need to be transparent. Web standards need to be built-in to tools so that Web
designers and Web developers don't need
On 6/7/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...>
> [Ian] 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml,
> because it is, after all, XHTML.
> [Vlad] Author wants to learn more about XHTML.
What?
<...>
> I think arguments like this don't help Web standar
Alan wrote:
[quote]
That might not be a valid argument but that was not Ian's argument.
[/quote]
Hey Alan,
I think it is. Here are the 6 points Ian makes to explain why he thinks using
text/html for XHTML is bad. My interpretation follows each point. [source:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml]
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
>Russ wrote:
>[quote]
>At the risk of being burned at the stake, I think that unless you are willing
>to serve your pages as application/xhtml+xml with content negotiation, then
>you are probably better off staying with HTML 4.01 at this time.
>[/quote]
>
>Let m
> Any pointers?
Hi Ben,
When interviewed, I was reluctant to express an opinion on this topic for
the very reasons you describe - the XHTML vs HTML argument quickly turns
from facts to opinion - similar to the font size and liquid vs fixed width
debates.
I completely agree with Vlad that Hixies
Russ wrote:
[quote]
At the risk of being burned at the stake, I think that unless you are willing
to serve your pages as application/xhtml+xml with content negotiation, then you
are probably better off staying with HTML 4.01 at this time.
[/quote]
Let me be the first to gather the kindling :-)
Russ,
One of the topics you discuss is your stance on the XHTML vs HTML
debate. Your links support your stance -- I've read these before, and
find them interesting and insightful, however they are trying to
convince the reader of their point and I prefer a balanced argument. In
looking for a
Completely true - the irony!
The original post is here:
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
Unfortunately, it too goes off to the same flash file.
Russ
> I can't believe the "WCAG 1.0 Guidelines and Checkpoints for Flash" link
> in section 6 goes to a .swf file. o_O
Douglas Clifton wrote:
> Ha! The shoe's on the other foot, eh Russ?
I can't believe the "WCAG 1.0 Guidelines and Checkpoints for Flash" link
in section 6 goes to a .swf file. o_O
--
"Love does not demand its own way."1 Corinthians 13:5
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Fel
12 matches
Mail list logo
