On Monday 13 March 2006 06:50, Frank Ellermann wrote: > • isn't supported by my legacy browser. The wikipedia > folks apparently go for "use UTF-8 for everything excluding > " - worse from my POV.
Your POV is valid of course, but I do agree with the UTF-8 push. Yes, it might not work with every old browser, but it's a lot more elegant way forward, especially when dealing with multiple languages. It's also a fairly simple task for a browser to add support for UTF-8, versus i.e. XHTML (more on that below). > AFAIK for XHTML all values have to be quoted, and if that's > correct it should be cellspacing="3" or similar. At the > moment there are lots of validator nits, XHTML strict is a > tough beast. Transitional is much better, the W3C claim > that only strict is good for accessibility is propaganda :-( XHTML in general is pointless. HTML 4.01 has no disadvantages versus XHTML 1.0, and in fact XHTML is not valid HTML, so some legacy browsers will print /'s all over the place as they /should/ do if they are strict HTML renderers. XHTML 1.0 sent as text/html is interpreted by browsers as malformed HTML. XHTML 1.1 sent as text/html is invalid also, and XHTML 1.1 sent as required by the spec, as application/xml+xhtml or whatever it is, doesn't work in most browsers period. The HTML-->XHTML migration isn't as nice as the W3C would like you to believe. Good application XHTML support is still years away. Cheers, -- Casey Allen Shobe | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 206-381-2800 SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
