|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/28/07 04:05
In article <e_r6i.2221$XC3.1402@trnddc04>,
"El Kabong" <davelong40@verizon.net> wrote:
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-8B01D8.07220728052007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article <f3cfia$2ob$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
> > Knut Krueger <knut.krueger@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
> >>
> >> > Ceterum censeo: most authors gain nothing but confusion by using XHTML
> >> > instead of good old HTML 4.01.
> >> >
> >> Anything what's not working with 4.01?
> >
> > A lot more things will not work, on average, for now if you don't
> > use 4.01
>
> Out of curiosity, is there _ever_ a good reason to go to the trouble of
> using XHTML? Are there some example pages that just wouldn't work if they
> weren't done in XHTML?
>
There was a case here a little while back of someone getting
Google maps working on his page(s) and it "needed" it:
<http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.html/browse_frm/thread/7336
b6f87ebd9dcd/fd74092f571d9a7d?lnk=gst&q=google+map&rnum=3&hl=en#fd
74092f571d9a7d>
And I know a bloke who would not have got a job had he not been
able to show his would be employer (probably simply ignorant) a
few pages he had done in it.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|