W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Valid XML

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 12:40:18 -0400
Message-Id: <EDB4A1C0-6C6A-4EAC-BE8B-968AE6E07BF5@w3.org>
To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>


Le 05-05-21 à 09:49, Patrick H. Lauke a écrit :
> Actually, as demonstrated before (where IE gets confused when an  
> empty script element is minimised - perfectly valid under XHTML  
> 1.0), the dominant browser only understands *compatible* XHTML 1.0  
> (as per appendix C) sent as text/html. At which stage, I can  
> understand why some people are wondering: "why bother? why not use  
> HTML 4.01 instead?"

It's funny how people don't read. :)))
I haven't said you _have to_ use "XHTML 1.0". I said you can use it  
if it suits your needs. I use it on my personal project because I  
need it. Period. :)


[[[
Le 05-05-06 à 16:22, Vincent François a écrit :
> What do you think about the idea of going back to HTML 4.01 because  
> XHTML 1.0 is delivered as text/html ?
>

You don't go back to something. You only choose the language which  
suits your need. There's nothing wrong in one or the other.

I encourage that you use Strict for XHTML 1.0 AND HTML 4.01
]]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-evangelist/2005May/0002



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 16:40:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:19 UTC