- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 12:40:18 -0400
- To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>
Le 05-05-21 à 09:49, Patrick H. Lauke a écrit : > Actually, as demonstrated before (where IE gets confused when an > empty script element is minimised - perfectly valid under XHTML > 1.0), the dominant browser only understands *compatible* XHTML 1.0 > (as per appendix C) sent as text/html. At which stage, I can > understand why some people are wondering: "why bother? why not use > HTML 4.01 instead?" It's funny how people don't read. :))) I haven't said you _have to_ use "XHTML 1.0". I said you can use it if it suits your needs. I use it on my personal project because I need it. Period. :) [[[ Le 05-05-06 à 16:22, Vincent François a écrit : > What do you think about the idea of going back to HTML 4.01 because > XHTML 1.0 is delivered as text/html ? > You don't go back to something. You only choose the language which suits your need. There's nothing wrong in one or the other. I encourage that you use Strict for XHTML 1.0 AND HTML 4.01 ]]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-evangelist/2005May/0002 -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 16:40:26 UTC