|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 07/01/80 12:01
A-OK-SITE wrote:
> On Jan 28, 11:15 am, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> A-OK-SITE wrote:
>>> See what I was talking about it is the same old arguments with no
>>> basis in reality (see previous post). A large percent of
>>> knowledgeable web designers use XHTML and serve it as HTML with no
>>> problems. I find that most of the people who object to XHTML don't
>>> want to spend the time learning a new process for coding pages. XHTML
>>> uses modern practices like external style sheets and box design for
>>> layouts instead of tables and inline formatting. There is absolutely
>> > no doubt that XHTML provides a much cleaner and uncluttered page.
>>
>> This demonstrates that you aren't even aware of what does and doesn't
>> distinguish XHTML from HTML 4.01. That being the case, you lack a basis
>> for judging the relative merits of using either of them. For your
>> information, XHTML adds nothing to HTML 4.01 in the way that external
>> style sheets and box design are used in preference to markup to specify
>> presentation for a page.
>
> You know that is not what I was talking about.
I don't know that and I don't see how it's possible unless you were
using words that expressed something completely different from what you
meant. Perhaps you should reread your own words to find out what it was
you said, as opposed to what it was you think you said.
> I didn't feel like
> writing a book, but in your case I guess I should have. You lack the
> basis for saying anything I care to hear about.
That's fine, proceed in ignorance, but just do everyone a favor and
don't presume to "inform" others.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|