|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 11/12/05 11:58
Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2006 03:43:43 -0700
> "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> > 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.
Several browsers will fail to render the page at all.
The web, as it currently stands, is _not_ ready for XHTML except under
Appendix C. It just plain doesn't work right, unless you faff around
presenting it as text/html instead. And that's the _optimistic_,
pro-XHTML view of things! Many people still reckon that all XHTML is
_entirely_ inappropriate, and there's very few that have any tangible
benefit to using it. As for trying to make it fly in a purely XML
context, then that's simply unaceptable, this year, as the sole format
of content served.
As the OP is having trouble with basic CSS syntax, then it's most
unlikely he has anything to gain from XHTML, and certainly not from the
extremely narrow tightrope to walk that is using XHTML as XML.
> > > <head>
> >
> > If you insist on using XHTML, do it right.
>
> does this have anything to do with the "<head>" ?
Sorry, poor trimming on my part. Look at what's missing from <html>
> To the original poster:
How about actually fixing the obvious bug he has the problem with?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|