- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:05:01 +1000
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 19/04/2007, at 2:54 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > Le 19 avr. 2007 à 10:18, Lachlan Hunt a écrit : >> Many authors, particularly those in the web standards community, >> have been promoting and using HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPEs expecting >> that it would always be standards mode in every browser; and it >> seems that it will be in all but IE. > > Hmmm we do not know the same it seems ;) > 1. Many of the web developers and web designers I know have been > promoting XHTML 1.0 Strict. They are practically equivalent in the real world. It is not useful to make such a distinction. > 2. Many of the teachers I know have been promoting XHTML 1.0 Strict > (easier to teach). XHTML being easier to teach than HTML is a matter of opinion, although evidence suggests that teaching XHTML as text/html isn't very successful, and I consider it a mistake to do so. (Although, this is a little off topic). >> What right do you have to speak for web developers? > > Before you ask me the question too ;) I have been teaching and > working in Web design agencies. > Nobody has the right to speak for others (except when mandated). We > can only point to materials (blog posts, forums, mails, …). Right. >> You should not presume you know what authors want, especially >> without actually asking or even listening to them when they tell >> you directly! > > If we talk about authors in the general sense of it. Most of them > don't know HTML at all. It might be accurate to say that most of them don't know HTML well, but most authors still know HTML to some degree (excluding those who use WYSIWYG editors to generate everything without ever looking at the source code). -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:07:07 UTC