01-12-2008, 11:15 PM
|
#27 (permalink)
|
|
The Wanderer
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 21
Thanks: 4
|
No problem mate. Great that you can use it. I agree with you that this works very well in contrast with having a lot of images and extra tags.
Oh, and btw. I do recommend using HTML 4 strict. That fixes alot of problems with HTML/CSS. I cannot say about XHTML transitional or otherwise.
But the difference between HTML 4 loose and strict is like night and day. With other than strict, then the browsers go into "quirks" mode. Which means that none of them even remotely display stuff consistently.
I use HTML 4 because XHML needs to be served as XHTML/XML (or something like that) and most servers don't. So your XHTML document is read as HTML anyway.
I try to write valid code though. It's not like I use the font tag :)
I'm not really an expert, but I feel that "You must write XHTML" is overhyped.
Why not XHTML ? - Mark Ng - SEO and Accessibility aware Web Developer London, England
Quote:
|
The conclusion I come to is that unless you have a compelling reason to use XHTML, you should continue to use HTML 4.01 (preferably Strict). Where you have reason to use XHTML 1.0 in production, you should be well aware of the problems dealt with in Appendix C of the specification and elsewhere in this document. Where you have reason to use a newer version of XHTML, you must provide alternative content for browsers that aren't aware of XHTML.
|
Why XHTML? - Robert’s talk - Web development and Internet trends
HTML or XHTML? - Robert’s talk - Web development and Internet trends
Last edited by victorius : 01-12-2008 at 11:36 PM.
|
|
|