- From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 00:05:21 -0700
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
scripsit Jim Ley: > > "Thanasis Kinias" tkinias@optimalco.com > > >> What is better to conform to, HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0? > >> > >> or what are the reasons for conforming to either...? > > >Unless you are using authoring tools which cannot produce valid HTML > >(e.g., Dreamweaver not too long ago), there's no reason to use HTML 4 > >any more. XHTML 1.0 is the current W3C recommendation, and has been for > >several years. > > HTML 4.01 is also a current W3C recommendation, and has the advantage of > being renderable in current user agents, and servable as text/html without > having to go through a whole raft of "compatibility guidelines" that > aren't machine testable (yet?) a) If you go to <http://www.w3.org/TR/html/>, you will find the current recommendation for HTML -- and it is XHTML 1.0, 2d ed. HTML 4.01 is _a_ current W3C recommendation, as is XHTML 1.1, Ruby Annotation, WCAG 1.0, etc., but none of the others are _the_ current HTML rec. b) The "compatability guidelines" aren't that onerous, and if you avoid a few things like using <script /> even NS4 can parse it without undue hassle -- unlike, for example, CSS1. Just using valid HTML 4.01 isn't proof against browser testing either -- various MSIE versions will still horribly misrender some valid HTML 4.01, too. > If your authoring tool can't create valid HTML, why is HTML 4 any more use > than XHTML 1? I apologize for that: I mistyped -- I meant valid _XHTML_. Dreamweaver specifically will silently replace instances of `selected="selected"' on checkboxes with the invalid minimized form `selected'. This is fine in old-style HTML, but not in X(HT)ML. > If XHTML 1 has been _the_ current W3C recommendation - what is the status > of XHTML 1.1? See (a) above. -- Thanasis Kinias Web Developer, Information Technology Graduate Student, Department of History Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A. Ash nazg durbatul�k, ash nazg gimbatul, Ash nazg thrakatul�k agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Received on Monday, 5 August 2002 03:05:21 UTC