|
|
Posted by Geoff Berrow on 11/14/06 08:57
Message-ID: <bm1il2p2b1k775v5eh4l8doln1qpbicdlp@4ax.com> from Michael
Fesser contained the following:
>>That's because XHTML is text, and it is html.
>
>XHTML can be much more than that, but not as text/html.
>
>>> XHTML anymore. It's written in an HTML-compatible syntax, it's delivered
>>> as HTML and parsed as HTML.
>>
>>And that's what makes it work.
>
>Then there's no reason to use XHTML currently, simply because it doesn't
>provide any benefits over HTML.
>
>OTOH XHTML _does_ have its benefits, but only if it's interpreted as
>such and not as HTML. This, as said, requires a modern browser.
It used to be that one of the liberating factors of the web was that
HTML was simple and easy to learn. Therefore it was no barrier to
producing webpages. Contrast that with XHTML (generated by XML and XSLT
stylesheets). Actually I don't know how hard that is, there never being
enough hours in the day for me to find out. But I suspect that this
method is gong to be more useful for web development tools than straight
hand coders (BICBW - enlightenment welcome).
I see absolutely no benefit in marking up to XHTML 1.1 Strict delivered
as text over and above HTML 4.01 Strict. And XHTML 1.1 transitional is
definitely a step backward.
The op should probably take an overview of the technologies involved in
XHTML but a more productive area of study might be in accessibility and
fluid web design.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|