|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/25/06 16:31
cwdjrxyz wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> tzuchia16@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Thanks guys for replying. Your comments were very helpful.
>>>
>>> And my question was related to a company website, and we're using
>>> XHTML. I'll look into using Strict though.
>> Note: it's not a question of using Strict *versus* XHTML. Both HTML 4.01
>> and XHTML come in both Strict and Transitional versions. Andy's main
>> point was that you ought to use HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML. The Strict
>> part just follows the general principle that Transitional exists to
>> support existing sites, and that Strict should be used for new work.
>
> 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, which is about as
> strict as a mother superior in a 1800s convent.
I didn't even know about XHTML 1.1. Interesting that the address
http://www.w3.org/TR/html/
leads to XHTML 1.0.
In any event, according to the W3C,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/changes.html
the only differences between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 Strict is in the
modularization architecture of the DTD and the following three changes:
1. On every element, the lang attribute has been removed in favor of
the xml:lang attribute (as defined in [XHTMLMOD]).
2. On the a and map elements, the name attribute has been removed in
favor of the id attribute (as defined in [XHTMLMOD]).
3. The "ruby" collection of elements has been added (as defined in
[RUBY]).
So I don't know what benefit would come from moving from XHTML 1.0 to
XHTML 1.1 anyway, *especially* if one is relying on Transitional features.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|