|
|
Posted by Thomas Jollans on 12/17/15 11:58
On 18 Sep 2006 03:43:43 -0700
"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?>
>
> Don't use an XML prolog on web content
Why not ? It's completely correct - the only problem is that it throws
IE6 (and others?) into some quirks mode that creates problems.
> Don't use a Windows codepage on web content
...., use UTF-8 or an ISO-8859 encoding like iso-8859-1 (latin1) or
iso-8859-15 (latin9: variation of latin1, with EUR symbol).
> Don't use XHTML unless you know what you're doing and why.
XHTML is a lot more consistent than HTML<=4, making it easier to
support and possibly tags easier to recognise.
> Don't use XHTML 1.1
Why not ? It's the most current W3c recommendation. There's not much
(if any ) benefit over XHTML 1.0 Strict to the web site author though.
> Don't even think about writing XHTML without validating it.
validating is always good, but writing valid XHTML isn't harder than
HTML 4. You just need to know XML syntax, which is really not that hard.
> > <head>
>
> If you insist on using XHTML, do it right.
does this have anything to do with the "<head>" ?
To the original poster: make sure the code is valid, and give us a URL.
Don't trust IE, it has many bugs. I recommend writing with a almost
standards compliant (Opera, Konqueror, Safari, other KHTML) or
fairly standards compliant (Firefox, Seamonkey, KMeleon, other Gecko)
browser and and then tune around the bugs of IE. I wouldn't be
surprised if your web editor used the IE rendering engine internally,
so don't be surprised that it displays "just as correctly" as IE.
Thomas Jollans
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|