- From: David Dorward <david@us-lot.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:36:43 +0100
- To: wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On 18 Aug 2004, at 09:56, Jesper Tverskov wrote:
> But there are also some problems in the validation-issue. It is easy to
> make the transitional versions of HTML and XHTML validate but not that
> easy if you opt for "strict" or XHTML 1.1.
What is so much harder about using Strict or XHTML 'SHOULD NOT be
served to Internet Explorer' 1.1?
* You have to give up forcing new windows on users (or use JS)
* You have to give up on frames (or use JS)
... and if you are not willing to do that then why are you using Strict
in the first place?
Everything else is trivial to achieve with CSS - usually a case of
one-to-one mapping of deprecated attributes to properties, or just
ditching obsolete attributes (like <script language>).
You might be thinking of using semantic markup instead of abusing
tables for layout and blockquotes for indentation but - despite a
strong link between documents advocating Strict over Transitional and
documents advocating Structure/Semantics over Layout - switching to
Strict doesn't stop you doing that. The elements are still there in
Strict to be abused, you are just more likely to see instances of:
<td style="width: 172px; height:27px; padding: 0pt;"><img
src="logo.gif" alt="logo" style="width: 172px; height: 27px;"/></td>
instead of:
<td width="172"><img src="logo.gif" height="27" width="172"
alt="logo"></td>
--
David Dorward
<http://dorward.me.uk/>
<http://blog.dorward.me.uk/>
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 09:36:38 UTC