Posted by Sanders Kaufman on 11/07/07 13:37

"Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.t1d0h4x85bnjuv@metallium.lan...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:44:22 +0100, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net>
wrote:

> "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:op.t1duk1ik5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
>
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsimpler-solutions.net%2Fpmachinefree%2Fthinkagain%2Fthinkagain.php?
>
> Validate, fix, then check again (and an issue is probably best addressed
> in alt.html). You're making it needlessly hard for yourself using XHTML
> instead of HTML though.

Hmm, quoting gone wrong?

Yup - gave up trying to fix it every time I reply to one of your posts.
Just figgered - either you'd change your settings, or we'd learn to live
with it.
Kinda like top-posting.


> But for *very* few differences - they're the same thing.
> What about using XHTML makes this harder?

Validating to true XHTML (i.e. CDATA in script/style etc., starting with
<?xml ?>). Now, XHTML intended and served as tagsoup HTML, that's not so
much harder, no.

"Tagsoup HTML"?
I've been using XHTML (albeit - not as religiously as I mean to).
Scripting works; posts and gets work; spiders work.
I've had NO problem with validation.

What about XHTML makes that harder?
For what sinkhole am I headed?

[Back to original message]