RE: Is this legal XHTML 1.1?

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> >Why aren't you using HTML 3.2?

Yechhh.  HTML 3.2 was nothing but the white flag of surrender of
everyone trying to improve markup-on-the-web to Netscape 3.0.
 
> In practice, I do. I'm just experimenting to see if it's possible to 
> move on. The short answer seems to be no, it isn't; and it doesn't 
> seem likely to be for years to come. XHTML might have some use beyond 
> the traditional browser, but it's not a usable solution for web sites 
> today.

I completely disagree.  What's wrong with XHTML 1.0 Strict, or for the
odd cases, Transitional?  Even served as text/html (so what that
browsers see it as tag soup?).  All the benefits of HTML 4, but you can
process it with XML tools.

And I'm looking forward to XHTML 2, but then again, I'm interested in
good markup -- not how it *looks* in the withering Netscape 3's and 4's.


/Jelks