Re: [Fwd: [W3Qc-public] XHTML]

Vincent François wrote:

> What do you think about the idea of going back to HTML 4.01 because 
> XHTML 1.0 is delivered as text/html ?

First post on this list, so forgive me if I don't strike the correct tone...

Personally, I think that as long as the pages then validate correctly as 
HTML 4.01, and every effort is made to nonetheless maintain separation 
of content and presentation and avoid presentational markup, then it's 
still a valid approach.

The way I interpreted the specs, XHTML does not necessarily replace 
HTML, it's a completely new technology that happens to reformulate HTML 
in an XML syntax.

If all you're doing is serving normal HTML markup (i.e. you're not using 
the eXtensible nature of XHTML, or mixing different X technologies 
together in one document), then XHTML has no real advantage over 
HTML...and one could argue that, fundamentally, it's better if you're 
serving older browsers, as they understand HTML but see XHTML as a 
(harmlessly) broken tag soup.

-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com

Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 20:28:54 UTC