On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 21:29 +1200, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote: > XHTML 2 is a working draft [1]. I wouldn't recommend that you base any > classes on it at this stage, beyond perhaps mentioning it and some of > its key improvements, as a lot could change between now and CR, PR or > final recommendation [2]. I agree. There's plenty of fun to be had talking about XHTML 1 or 1.1. I wrote a set of course notes years ago with standard HTML 4.01. Two years ago, I went back and put some "/>" at the end of the empty tags and had XHTML (a few other minor changes too, of course). Standards-based markup is often touted as a way to ensure web developers don't have to worry about flavour-of-the-month technologies. I assure you, it works for lazy instructors too. :-) All that's changed is that it's become easier to talk about CSS, because it's actually reasonably well supported now. -- Greg Baker, Lecturer School of Computing Science Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6 E-mail: ggbaker@cs.sfu.caReceived on Saturday, 6 August 2005 15:18:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:59:29 GMT