Posted by j1mb0jay on 02/21/07 21:14

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Steve Pugh:
>
>> It's served as text/html so it's not proper XHTML 1.1. If it was
>> served properly then IE wouldn't be able to display it. In other
>> words, theres' no practical way to use XHTML 1.1 correctly on the
>> web. And virtually no practical reason why you would want to.
>
> But the W3C makes a big noise about it! :-) See http://www.w3.org
> main page right now. They have created a working draft for XHTML 1.1
> Second Edition.
> Since XHTML 1.1 was an exercise in futility, I lack words to describe
> this madness. They don't tell what they changed, but probably the
> dark orange areas a indicate changes. They make a record in bogosity
> by including text in dark red on dark orange background.
>
> Regarding the page about which feedback was requested, it once again
> confirms the principle that "Valid HTML!" icons and relatives are
> much worse than useless and quite often simply incorrect (and
> sometimes blatant lies). Clicking on the icon shows a message "This
> page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!".
> This time, it's actually an easy-to-fix error: instead of wrapping
> <h3> inside <a>, which is invalid (<a> is text level, <h3> is block
> level), you can nest them the other way around,
> <h3><a ...>...</a></h3>
> (Using <h3> is semantically wrong, or at least questionable, since
> the page has just two levels of headings - they should thus be <h1>
> and <h2>, not <h2> and <h3>.)

Thank you for this information, do you suggest any other site or "API's" to
read rather than W3C (this was the suggested site to use for the course)
--
Regards JJ (UWA)

[Back to original message]