|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 02/20/07 14:38
Scripsit Steve Pugh:
> It's served as text/html so it's not proper XHTML 1.1. If it was
> served properly then IE wouldn't be able to display it. In other
> words, theres' no practical way to use XHTML 1.1 correctly on the web.
> And virtually no practical reason why you would want to.
But the W3C makes a big noise about it! :-) See http://www.w3.org main page
right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1 Second Edition.
Since XHTML 1.1 was an exercise in futility, I lack words to describe this
madness. They don't tell what they changed, but probably the dark orange
areas a indicate changes. They make a record in bogosity by including text
in dark red on dark orange background.
Regarding the page about which feedback was requested, it once again
confirms the principle that "Valid HTML!" icons and relatives are much worse
than useless and quite often simply incorrect (and sometimes blatant lies).
Clicking on the icon shows a message "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!".
This time, it's actually an easy-to-fix error: instead of wrapping <h3>
inside <a>, which is invalid (<a> is text level, <h3> is block level), you
can nest them the other way around,
<h3><a ...>...</a></h3>
(Using <h3> is semantically wrong, or at least questionable, since the page
has just two levels of headings - they should thus be <h1> and <h2>, not
<h2> and <h3>.)
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|