Re: XHTML

from Alan G. Isaac:
>I am hoping someone will eventually explain to
>me why it is too costly to simply double the
>number of tags.

  Yep! & don't forget to triple it, as I used to capitalize only
my tags' first letter. Aoh... & while we're in: a friend of mine
asked to quadruple it, as he tends to capitalize all but vowels...
And there's that guy next door... Oops. Maybe we'll all reverse
to good old dirty 3.2, this way we'll have no problem to
choose between <Center> & <CENTER> or between <blink> & <BLiNk>.
I never like those f*$^#ing CSS anyway, <Font> & <Table> work
better.

  Sorry, I'm just a bit fed up with this topic, if you don't like
the way xHTML 1.0 is written, just do not use it! W3c never said
you have to. HTML 4.0 works fine and will continue to work fine,
mind you: HTML 1.0 is currently perfectly rendered by both Gecko
& IE5. Just leave the train, you'll continue to be understood
by everyone, but please, don't stop the train!



  BTW, about the difficulty to learn xHTML,  I read here or there
that it was far more difficult that to learn HTML. What is more
difficult? That you don't have to learn anymore "this one takes a
closing tag, and this one doesn't", or "I've got to put quotes
aroun this attribute value but not that one"? "These atrribute
values and entities are case sensitive while that tag and
that attribute aren"t"? Please! Dan Oscarsson wrote: "quotes
around a number - absurd". What if I say: "a number without
quotes- absurd"? Am I true because I am the last one to talk or is
he because he was the first?

  A last word, to those who wrote the xHTML recommandation: wanting
to prepare the futur of the web wasn't a so bad idea, but I can't
believe you were brazen enough to try to break our confortable
habits! :)

  What about picking another topic?

Xave, xHTML fan :)

Received on Thursday, 18 March 1999 18:11:50 UTC