[Phpwm] new ste

Dave Holmes Dave at neteffekt.co.uk
Thu Feb 15 01:45:30 GMT 2007

We are... And we are learning more and more about XHTML and CSS all the time
hence me being on the computer at 1am. http://www.clublinefootball.com/ uses
XMTML strict throughout.  

-----Original Message-----
From: phpwm-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk
[mailto:phpwm-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Phil Beynon
Sent: 15 February 2007 01:39
To: pccrouch at bcs.org.uk; West Midlands PHP User Group
Subject: RE: [Phpwm] new ste

> >> To make the validator work all you need to do is replace your
> previous dtd
> >> and html opening tag with (note the dtd and xml definition are
> the first
> >> thing on the page):
> >>
> >> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <!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' lang='en' xml:lang='en'>
> >>
> >
> > I've not noticed the <?xml thing all that often; is it often not used?
> > Or do few people bother reaching that standard?
> >
> > (<? also has that annoying property of being the equivalent of <?php 
> > on some stupid servers, and is quite annoying when you find it in 
> > 3rd party code).
> >
> > David.
> >
> In my limited experience with XHTML I have not used the initial <?xml 
> .... ?> line and my pages have validated successfully as XHTML 1.0 
> Transitional with the W3C validator, the WDG validator and the Total 
> Validator.
> The W3C XHTML1.0 standard, at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/, says "An 
> XML declaration is not required in all XML documents; however XHTML 
> document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in 
> all their documents. Such a declaration is required when the character 
> encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16 and 
> no encoding was determined by a higher-level protocol."
> So that probably explains why we can get away with omitting the <?xml 
> ... ?> stuff even though we should include it!
> Best wishes,
> Peter Crouch
> -------------------------------------------------
> Tel: 0121 523 6756
> E-mail: pccrouch at bcs.org.uk

Well I've got the homepage passing as XHTML 1.0 transitional. Everything
scooted left a bit though.

So is that what I should be aiming for, because I see on the W3C site it
also mentions XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 ??

Also as I understand it the main difference with 'strict' and 'transitional'
is its where you can't use certain tags or elements - such as align -
anymore and all these functions should only be within the CSS.
How many people are writing for 'strict' on an `aim to use strict in
everything` approach?


Phpwm mailing list
Phpwm at mailman.lug.org.uk

More information about the Phpwm mailing list