|
|
Posted by cwdjrxyz on 10/25/06 16:06
Andy Dingley wrote:
> cwdjrxyz wrote:
>
> > Only the old xhtml 1.0 comes in strict, transitional, and frameset
> > versions. The more recent xhtml 1.1 (not so new now and a higher
> > version is in the works) comes in only one version,
>
> So why is "Newer" equivalent to "Better" ?
> Justify your arguments. Show your working.
I did not say newer is better. I am just pointing out that xhtml 1.0 is
now fairly old, there is a newer version 1.1, and yet another version
is in the works. I think I will leave it to the W3C to explain why they
developed 1.1 and have another version in the works. That is their
baby, not mine.
> > There is no point in
> > writing in xhtml and then serving it as text/html as often is done.>
> Except that if you accept that, then you implicitly accept there's no
> point in writing XHTML at all. There is certainly no point (given the
> current state of the web) in serving XHTML under an XML content-type.
> Implicitly this then requires Appendix C and removes 1.1 from
> viability.
> If you _must_ (for whatever reason) push XHTML onto the web, then
> you're currently forced to XHTML 1.0 rather than 1.1
There is of course no point in writing an xhtml page for use on the web
and serving it properly with mime type application/xhtml+xml if you
want to write only a single page that can be viewed by IE6 and likely
IE7 as well as several other outdated browsers. On a network, with only
modern browsers that comply to W3C standards, of course there may be no
problem. The main problem with xhtml is caused by Microsoft who can
not or does not want to write a standards compliant browser, despite
the fact that they likely contribute more money to the W3C than most
others and serve on many of the W3C committees. Serving proper xhtml
1.1 is quite possible now if you wish, but it does require alternate
html code, which can be provided in various ways, for outmoded
browsers such as IE6. This may be more than many people want to do now.
I am not suggesting that anyone use one certain form of xhtml or html.
Use html 3.2 for all I care.But whatever you use, it helps if you use
valid code, especially if you do not have a huge zoo of browsers on
which to test the page. The fact remains that many web pages, often
from major companies, still do not come even close to validating as
anything and appear to have just grown over the years starting with
bits of html 3.2 and perhaps including some html 4.01 and perhaps even
some xhtml, as well as several versions of JavaScript code, all mixed
in the code stew.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|