Posted by Harlan Messinger on 11/04/07 17:39

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:34 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>>>> websites.
>>>>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>>>>>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
>>>>> W3 recommends the use of CSS
>>>> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
>>>> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
>>>> to*, there is no web page.
>>> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>>> and XHTML for content,
>>> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>> I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
>> of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
>> of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety.
> But there are major differences.
> HTML is not in XML format.

That's why there's XHTML. That's what I just said.

> You have to make the changes necessary to make the document proper XML
> before you can get it accepted as XML.

And? You had to change an HTML 3.2 document to be HTML 4.01 before it
would be accepted as HTML 4.01. It was still *HTML* the whole time.

>> In any event, it has
>> nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
>> separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
>> presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
>> presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
>> now can't figure out what your point was!
> The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
> forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.

CSS, absolutely, and that isn't a new revelation, it's been the
advisable approach to web page production for years. XHTML, no, for
reasons that have been described by others many times in c.i.w.a.h.,
unless you there is a specific reason why your page's source code needs
to be in XML format, and even then you need to know the ramifications of
using XHTML in the current browser environment. So you might consider
storing your content in XHTML, or in ANY form of XML that might be
useful for your particular content, and then transform it to HTML 4.01
at the time it's served.

[Back to original message]