|
|
Posted by robert maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t on 02/16/07 06:11
> From: "Steve Pugh" <steve.gru...@gmail.com>
> > While <tag /> is a perfectly acceptable non-container XML tag,
> Correct.
> It has a different (but valid) use in HTML. However that use has never
> been supported by browsers. It should be avoided in HTML for a mix of
> practical and technical reasons.
OK, so you're saying I should avoid that syntax.
> The only thing that comes close to a transition between HTML and
> XHTML is Appendix C of the XHTML spec which recommends the use of
> <br /> for empty elements ...
So that appendix says to go ahead and use <br />.
Since you disagree on that point, I assume you believe that
appendix is full of shit and should be ignored.
At this point I believe the class instructor lied, there's no such
thing as Web pages that are HTML/XHTML transitional, and I should
stop trying to write any such pages.
What doctype/dtd/meta combination do you recommend for Web pages
that work with old browsers such as NetScape Navigator, text-only
browsers such as lynx, modern fullfledged browsers such as Mozilla
Fire???, and new XML-based browsers? (Never mind IE. Nobody who
cares about security ever uses IE except on somebody else's
computer where they don't care if the OS is destroyed.)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|