|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 03/18/06 18:07
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, xyZed wrote:
> There is circumstantial evidence that on Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:54:56
> GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote
> > WWhether you use XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.0, I will leave for otherto
> > discuss.
HTML/4.01 rather than 4.0, hmmm?
> I was writing all my markup in XHTML 1.0 strict but was bothered by
> the fact it wouldn't allow me to open affiliate sites in a separate
> window. I know it's potentially contentious,
If that's your only reason for using "transitional", then I would find
it annoying - except on browsers which have the option for me to
defeat it ;-)
Of course, I'm hardly a typical web reader; but there are lots of
other reports of ordinary folk being annoyed or confused by the
throwing of a new window. Indeed for someone who is low on resources,
the throwing of a new window *could* crash their browser, hang their
operating system, etc., so maybe it's nicer to leave the decision to
them. There are less harmful ways to signal that some links are
internal to your enterprise whereas others are external, if you feel
that this is important to you. The BBC (to take one example) seems
quite capable of opening web sites for which "The BBC is not
responsible...", without feeling the need to break my browser's Back
function. I'm looking at news.bbc.co.uk in this specific example.
> Other than the opening of links with target="_blank" my pages
> validated with XHTML strict (apart from the useless affiliate
> javascript links which is another post)
You mean inlined JS ? That would seem to be a problem, especially if
they insist on using invalid syntax (I mean, "insist" to the point of
refusing payment if one corrects their syntax errors).
But, that issue aside, inlined JS is less of a problem in HTML syntax
than in XHTML; and anyway should not be relevant to your *other*
choice, of strict versus transitional.
> Should I seriously consider switching to strict?
I can't tell you what you *should* do, but I've been steadily adapting
my own legacy pages to strict. Except for the ones which offer
samples of legacy markup for tutorial purposes, that is :-}
As far as I'm concerned, though, the browsers that are out there are
still somewhat more tuned to HTML than to XHTML, so I've made my
choice (for now) accordingly.
Hardly any of what passes for XHMTL on the web today would be really
fit to offer as real XHTML, though. So, the fact that one sees
increasing amounts of what purports to be XHTML need not make anyone
despondent about the status of HTML. On the other hand, it certainly
*should* make them despondent about the status of XHTML - as Hixie's
well known rant also points out, in its own way.
[Back to original message]
|