Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- From: John Hosking <John@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:30:37 +0200
William Gill wrote:
David Dorward wrote:XHTML 1.1 adds support for Ruby annotation (which has virtually nil
support among clients) and (if used correctly) isn't supported by,
among others, Lynx, GoogleBot or any version of Microsoft Internet
Explorer. There's plenty of discussion on the subject in the archives
of this newsgroup and of comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.
I did a quick review (I'll get more in depth later, but thought it polite to reply promptly), and can see that my efforts would better spent getting all my documents from HTML 4 transitional to strict.
What a refreshing change! A poster who lurks first, writes clearly, and responds politely! I was about to give up hope...
A well-behaved gentleman like yourself would be welcome in most any technical discussion you'd care to contribute to. You might also want to visit/lurk/participate at c.i.w.a.html, if you're not already.
One of the multitude of articles and discussions regarding XHTML is sitting in my bookmarks (from 2005): http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200501/the_perils_of_using_xhtml_properly/
(which URL which probably wrap). That article comes from a different direction, but touches on some of the issues to consider. Be sure to read through the comments.
I haven't had need to touch XHTML so I stay with HTML 4.01 strict.
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- From: dorayme
- Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- References:
- XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- From: William Gill
- Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- From: David Dorward
- Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- From: William Gill
- XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- Prev by Date: Re: Qualities of a good web designer
- Next by Date: Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- Next by thread: Re: XHTML 1.1 vs HTML 4.01?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading