- From: Michael Bowen <fizzbowen@mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 04:24:34 -0700
- To: www-html@w3.org
Erich Reto Iseli wrote (way back on 28 February 2002); >Methinks... if you are not ready to use XHTML1.1, then stick with XHTML1.0 >Strict. And if you are not ready to use XHTML1.0 strict, use XHTML1.0 >Transitional. But please *please*! Don't abuse modularization! I have just independently encountered the usemap problem with which Peter Sheerin started this thread on 25 February. As Erich suggested, I would love to keep on using XHTML 1.0 Transitional (or even Strict), but I'm also authoring MathML-embedded-in-XHTML, and if I want to validate, the only DTD recognized by the validator seems to be "XHTML 1.1 plus MathML 2.0." So I (and anyone else that wants to validate embedded MathML) don't have much choice; it's XHTML 1.1 or nothing. (Well, almost nothing; I have at least verified that my test document is well-formed XML, so I'll take my gold star now, thank you.) I'm not clever enough to write a custom DTD, much less tinker with modules. I'm just a simple minded user that wants to validate some math against a recommended standard. But it has been very difficult to get my test page to simultaneously validate, render, and function (that is, for the linked images to remain "live"). Please, let there be someone at W3C working on a fix (erratum) for the usemap/IDREF problem. Otherwise, given the current state of the major browsers, client-side image maps are effectively deprecated in XHTML 1.1. --MB
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 07:24:58 UTC