Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > I do agree with the UTF-8 push.
Me too generally. But they also translate NCRs and symbolic entities (excl. nbsp fortunately) automagically to UTF-8, and that's a bit exaggerated - from my "mozilla 3" POV again ;-) Critical characters include ² (anything squared), degree, and some quotation marks. They don't support <q> for unknown (= I didn't ask) reasons. In theory <q> should be smarter than hardcoded UTF-8 quotation marks. Especially if nested. > XHTML in general is pointless. IBTD, we had really obscure errors here on the SPF site caused by HTML's "default end tags". That pain simply doesn't exist in XHTML. Admittedly getting inline <script> and <style> right with XHTML working for both worlds is black magic, but OTOH inline <script> and <style> are a bad idea to start with. I've never seen a browser interpreting SGML </> correctly. If you talk about the features - then yes, no serious differences between XHTML 1 and HTML 4. > 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. ACK, that's a dead end. But XHTML 1.0 transitional is the best HTML 3.2 I know... <g> My browser vintage 1998 also likes most of it, excluding some esoteric stuff like <tfoof> and <del>. > The HTML-->XHTML migration isn't as nice as the W3C would > like you to believe. They are innocent, when I started to learn this I stumbled over the O'Reilly book "HTML & XHTML", and thought that XHTML is a bit more logical for my tastes, > Good application XHTML support is still years away. Maybe we even get a (wannabe) "HTML 5" from the WHATWG. Bye <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Doctl#middot> ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
