|
|
Posted by Andrew on 03/16/07 10:03
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:46:05 +0000, Joe wrote:
> In article <1173970659.606826.238370@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> dingbat@codesmiths.com says...
>> On 15 Mar, 14:21, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>>
>> > the latter could actually do some harm, if it helps
>> > someone to do something he shouldn't be doing.
>>
>> There is no significant reason at all why the OP _shouldn't_ do this,
>> merely reasons why it's not important to. That's a difference.
>>
>> As the zeitgeist of this ng is clearly "HTML good, XHTML bad", then
>> it's puzzling (to say the least) to see one of the respected regulars
>> post an apparently "pro-XHTML" post that's semingly at variance with
>> history. That was my real reason for posting, not the OP's original
>> question.
>>
>>
> I read JKK's post as saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Hi,
Thanks for this (and many other!) comments. Indeed the site is not
broken and it has been for the most part written with scrupulously
careful XHTML 1.0 Strict.
The site has actually been the one where I learnt to use CSS effectively
and write semantically correct (X)HTML. But I will admit that my doubts
about XHTML have been worn away in part by this NG (I mean this in a
constructive way!) and especially by the recent rumbles from the W3C
about a return to HTML.
I shall ponder a little more. I have just spent untold hours on this site
recently (actually my father's research and material) and will not be
touching it again until he has new material for me to incorporate. Then I
will rethink :-)
Thanks for all the trouble!
Andrew
--
Andrew Strong
http://www.strong-family.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|