Re: Promotion of XHTML

At 10:05 AM 12/30/2002, John Colby wrote:
>Initially the coding will be performed using a text editor - the 
>organisation's Windows only at the moment but I've already had discussions 
>about Linux and deploying it more widely. - but the one and only tool I've 
>been able to feel comfortable with is TopStyle Pro 
>(http://www.bradsoft.com) and although I've been trying to get to grips 
>with Arachnophilia (http://www.arachnoid.com/arachnophilia/) I haven't yet 
>been satisfied that I can convert it all into XHTML 1.1 compliant mode 
>without a load of work (where'd all the time go!?). Although it's free 
>doesn't seem to be approaching the code from the 'right' way IMHO. 
>Dreamweaver is a great tool, but a no-no because of cost. I'm going to get 
>them to process graphics with the GIMP.
>
>I'd appreciate anyone's views on this and your opinion of this type of 
>approach, both for learning style and toolsets, bearing in mind that this 
>is classroom teaching by lecture and workshop (it may expand later into 
>print and web media) and is intended to be part of a degree course.

Unless you're also teaching serving XHTML 1.1 with the correct MIME type, 
why that matters, and what it means to legacy browsers, it's my option that 
teaching to XHTML 1.1 is overkill and possibly even a disservice.

There's no reason that an HTML 4.01 course cannot be done that also teaches 
good semantics, separation of content/presentation, standards, 
accessibility, etc.  Just because 4.01 allows for paragraphs with no ending 
tag means one has to teach coding that way....

With the skills mastered, they transfer to XHTML 1.0, 1.1, and forward into 
the future.  It's just a matter of understanding the 
grammatical/syntactical differences, knowing what may have been 
deprecated/obsoleted, and so forth.

Bill Mason
Accessible Internet
w3c@accessibleinter.net
http://www.accessibleinter.net/

Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 03:37:29 UTC