Re: XHTML

In a message dated 1/31/00 12:26:06 PM US Mountain Standard Time, Keith Bowes 
wrote:

>  There's been a lot of arguments for and against XHTML on this list 
>  lately, but I'd like to tell you about something that happened to me.
>  I just converted my personal web site from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0 and 
>  everything worked fine on my computer.  Then, I uploaded the pages and 
>  validated them (they all validated).

I did the same thing, Keith - five different web sites consisting of a total 
of 98 pages. I utilized Dave Raggett's utility TIDY, via HTML-KIT, to 
accomplish the transition.
 
>  Then, I started Internet Explorer 5 and went to my site.  I clicked on a 
>  link, that's when the browser crashed.  I repeated the test- it happened 
>  again.  I tried it on Netscape-  it looked Netscapish (ie, terrible), 
>  but didn't crash.

I had exactly the opposite experience as you, Keith - all my pages display 
and function as designed in various iterations and versions of Internet 
Explorer (including version 5.0), Netscape Navigator, Opera, Web-TV, Lynx and 
the Speach/Braille Browsers of a Deafblind Internet friend of mine.


James Pickering
Tucson, Arizona
jamesicus@aol.com

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jamesicus/wf.htm">Tools and Information for 
producing well-formed Web Pages</A> 
http://members.aol.com/jamesicus/wf.htm

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jamesicus/index.htm">Brazilian Cacti in 
Cultivation</A> 
http://members.aol.com/jamesicus/

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/corsiva/">Italic Calligraphy Online Copybook<
/A> 
http://members.aol.com/corsiva/

Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 18:34:52 UTC