|
|
Posted by Marc on 01/13/06 12:18
Andy Dingley wrote:
> Recommendations:
>
> Don't use XHTML 1.1 or 2.0
Why not?
> If you do use XHTML, use Appendix C.
Sorry, I'm not clear on what you mean by 'Appendix C'. Please could you
explain?
> Use Strict (either one), because it keeps IE's CSS rendering models
> under control. IMHO it's better to be slightly invalid (with <a
> target="" > etc.) than to lose Strict in favour of valid Transitional.
Is it only IE that the choice of Transitional/Strict affects?
> Coding style depends on more than doctype. <font> will either be there
> or it won't, depending on whether you use it. Using Transitional doesn't
> make it compulsory!
I always use CSS for presentation, so I wouldn't touch <font> with a
barge pole.
> There's also no reason why a site needs a consistent doctype. If it's
> hard to do it on a particular page, change doctype.
Unless you're writing a CMS from which all pages will be outputted in
the same format.
> XHTML is hard to generate from XSLT - if you're using Appendix C. You
> may find HTML easier to keep valid. XHTML-as-XML (as generated by XSLT
> with <xsl:output mode="xml" > ) is not a good choice for the web - it
> certainly will cause problems.
Sorry, you lost me completely there, I've not looked into XSLT yet.
> As to which is better, HTML 4.01 vs. XHTML 1.0 / Appendix C, then there
> just isn't anything clear to choose between them. If there was, then we
> wouldn't need to argue over it.
But arguing makes for good discussion! :-)
Marc
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|