On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Matt Raible wrote:
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 06:17:21 -0700 > From: Matt Raible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: xhtml javascript hiding methods > > I think the best reason for generating XHTML (at this point) is that > adding an XHTML doctype at the top of a page makes IE and Mozilla "snap" > to standards-compliant mode. Rather than writing tweeks for each > browser - the same code works in both. This is a real lifesaver when > doing CSS positioning and DOM-based Javascript in pages. It's also > really nice to be able to validate (http://validator.w3.org) code. > I have no argument with supporting an XHTML output mode in our tags (thankfully, others did most of the work to make that happen :-). I object to generating *incorrect* XHTML -- or XHTML that doesn't follow the recommendations of the standard -- simply to deal with stupid browsers. It's basically the same reason I do not want to see us add non-standard HTML attributes to what we generate either. > An even better argument is that PDAs and Cell Phones are starting to > support XHTML. If you have an XHTML document - especially a Strict one > - you can run it through an XSL stylesheet, and have a whole new > website. > > Sounds good to me! > > Matt > Craig -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
