[Gllug] Re: Web Site Creation

[Henry Gilbert]

> Err... no. Using XHTML 1.0 Strict is no better than HTML 4.01 Strict.
> The only reasons you might want to use XHTML are buzzword compliance,
> or to try and convince IE's broken rendering engine to display the
> thing properly. But in my experience, using XHTML only confuses IE
> further, so I tend to avoid it. Obviously, others have had different
> experiences. YMMV.
>
> Tet

Buzzword is the excuse many throw at XHTML. compliance.
Although I personally am for any compliance as long as it sticks.
People add their stickers but the site fails check - so why add it in
the first place.

Regarding IE
In my experience it handles the tag soup pretty well for.
Obviously if you send Content-Type: XHTML .. etc - it will break.
Hence it fakes when it meets static XHTML
apparently *no* modern browser really handles XHTML)

IE gets confused with anything anway
but that aside I've never had serious issues with XHTML and IE 4/5/6 - ever

What XHTML reinforces is accessibility and I am all for that.

My personal preference of XHTML over HTML is the XML part.
I haven't checked whether HTML 4.0 Strict requires all tags to be closed.
But the collapsing and expanding of node suits me.

And the very rare occasions I have to manipulate XML data producing
XHTML some XSLT.

Sure XML/XSLT is rubbish for templating.
But for displaying and formating data it's pretty damn-well neat.

XML itself (deemed a buzzword) crops all over the place, from Gnome
config files, to Webservices.

Maybe WML was a buzzword ..
maybe AJAX is a buzzword (let's see what happens)

but XHTML is a standard drafted by the W3C and followed by many.
some are very user-oriented.

and I understand that there is nothing more bothersome than "unlearning".
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug