- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:55:02 +1000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > When introducing the language to authors, I prefer to stay within > the bounds of XML. I understand from instructors that this goes > over well with students. (I hope some of the instructors on this > list will chime in to give 1st-hand evidence.) Actually, teaching XHTML to beginners is a mistake because it's much more complex than people think, and it's usually taught under HTML conditions, which provides no real benefits whatsoever. http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners > So I'd present that as: > > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> That's a perfect example to illustrate my point. In XHTML, that DOCTYPE is unnecessary and meaningless. In HTML, the xmlns is unnecessary and meaningless (it's only permitted because it's so widely used and harmless). Don't waste time teaching useless features. If you think it's easier to always use end tags, always quote attribute values, etc., then teach that as good practice in HTML. There is no need to use XHTML for that, especially it's just being taught under HTML conditions. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 09:55:23 UTC