Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- From: Gianni Rondinini <bugbarbeq@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:10:53 +0100
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:37 +0100, Gianni Rondinini
<bugbarbeq@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>hi all. please excuse the misusage of some tech terms, but writing in
[...]
i wanted to thank all of you for your replies and informations.
first, i have to apologize for not recognizing xhtml 2.0 i'm reading
is a draft and not a "definitive" thing. there are so many "normative"
sections that i didn't even think at the fact they may be still under
discussions --i'm used to a different concept of "normative", due to
my job--.
said this, i'll stick back to the "old" html 4.01 (eventually xhtml
1.0). since i can't see no big differences between them, if not few
tags closed with [blank]/> and similar, the biggest difference becomes
having an icon "w3c html 4.01 compliant" or "w3c xhtml 1.0 compliant"
at the bottom of my pages. what would you prefer to have? or you don't
mind not having one nor the other?
thanks again in advance.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
.... parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e scelf sèza ciapé i bajoc!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- From: Eric B . Bednarz
- Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- References:
- does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- From: Gianni Rondinini
- does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- Prev by Date: Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- Next by Date: Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- Previous by thread: Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- Next by thread: Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|