Posted by Geoff Berrow on 07/19/06 20:09

Message-ID: <1153333629.382478.105670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> from
cwdjrxyz contained the following:

>An xhtml program can be pure html, pure xml, or a combination of both.
>Thus an xhtml program that has no xml only functions in some cases is
>about the same as an html 4.01 strict program with the addition of a
>few special things, such as closing everything, using lower case
>characters only, etc. In that case the html 4.01 strict page works just
>as well and does not require a special version for IE. However some
>xhtml pages may contain xml content that is best handled by xhtml, or
>in some cases xml only. Thus I needed an exception and would require
>the reason for the exception to see if it was understood why the
>exception was necessary, or far more practical. I should also have
>included the inverse case when the xhtml page can not be written as
>html 4.01 strict without undue complication, often because of the xml
>content in the xhtml page.

A lot of people are jumping on the XHTML bandwagon for no better reason
than they think newer==better. I know you're not one of them. I just
wanted to make the point that the doctype should be the one that is most
appropriate, not one that is being used just because it is fashionable.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Back to original message]