W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2005

[whatwg] WA 1.0 and WF 2

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:08:58 +1000
Message-ID: <435F71DA.1020502@lachy.id.au>
ROBO Design wrote:
> I took a closer look into the source code of both of the specifications. 
> Interestingly, you don't use XHTML 1.0 strict, you stick to valid HTML 
> 4.01 Strict (no </html> !).

There's no reason to use XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01;  in fact there are 
many reasons not to.  For starters, IE doesn't support XHTML and it 
would be rather ironic to write a spec designed for backwards 
compatibility in IE, using a language it doesn't even support.

See this, and search google, for more information about XHTML vs HTML.
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

> Last, but not least, please let us know about the advantages of using 
> lang="en-GB-hixie". I'm really curious about the reason for doing so.

http://ian.hixie.ch/bible/english

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 05:08:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:43 UTC