W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: XHTML Strict 1.1 Validation vs 1.0

From: David Cédric Latapie <david@empyree.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:30:52 +0200
Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org
Message-Id: <A6AAFEE0-21D5-4A1C-9CF6-F9FCD2DEE296@empyree.org>
To: SRJC <jsengstack@santarosa.edu>

Hello,

Le 2 avr. 08 à 07:10, SRJC a écrit :
>
> Hi:
>
> I teach HTML at the Santa Rosa Junior College in Santa Rosa, CA. I  
> expect all student work to pass XHTML 1.0 Strict validation. I see  
> now that XHTML 1.1 is an option. I'm not sure this is a new  
> development or if I just happened to stumble across it for the first  
> time. I just noticed it in the Tidy Firefox plug-in.
>
> Should we change our validation to 1.1? Is there a validator for  
> 1.1? If we should be validating to 1.1, what do we need to do  
> differently?

There is but minute _practical_ differences between XHTML 1.0 Strict  
and XHTML 1.1 (in theory, the latter is supposed to pave the way for  
modularization, but it never really caught on)

I found a real stopper for me in XHTML 1.1: it doesn't allow the  
":lang" attribute anymore; only "xml:lang" is possible. And "xml:lang"  
can't be styled with CSS...

This really is an issue only for localisation/internationalisation- 
conscious people (using different languages in one document, such as a  
quote, an etymology, a foreign book...), but this led me to revert  
back to XHTML 1.0

Bottom line:
• If you want the latest version, use it
• If you don't care, do whatever you want
• If you need styling foreign words in a clean way (no hack), stick to  
XHTML 1.0
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 17:22:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:17:57 GMT