Hi Everyone,
Thank you all so much for the great information, that helped a lot.
I agree with those of you who said that one could stay with html, of course
as long as one uses clean and valid code :)
Thanks again
Lisa
At 11:03 AM 11/25/2005, you wrote:
I guess I am wondering what the
My personal feeling is that you should be using the HTML 4.01 doctype.
Your not going to achive anything by using an XHTML doctype and it's
technically invalid. Remember *every User Agent will (and should) treat
your code as HTML*. If you put a skirt on a man it won't make him a
woman. Weather or
Alan Trick wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 10:46 -0400, The Snider's Web wrote:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd;
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml;
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;
Hi Everyone,
I am going to delurk to ask a question :)
I have been using html 4.01 transitional on my sites and have slowly
branched out to xhtml. However, I remember that there has been some
discussion on other lists about the 'dangers' of using xhtml. Here is what
I have seen used, what
Oops! Not sure what happened there...but after that doctype below the
charset would be:
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=UTF-8 /
I usually use the charset=iso-8859-1.
Hopefully that will make sense!
I guess I am wondering what the current debate is about xhtml, after
The Snider's Web wrote:
I have been using html 4.01 transitional on my sites and have slowly
branched out to xhtml. However, I remember that there has been some
discussion on other lists about the 'dangers' of using xhtml.
I know of no dangers with html 4.01 reformulated to proper
