Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- From: Gianni Rondinini <bugbarbeq@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:56:38 +0100
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:56:09 GMT, Lachlan Hunt
<spam.my.gspot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>There's a lot more changes you may need to make in order to properly
>convert an HTML 4 document to XHTML, not just minor syntax changes and
[...]
thanks, i got it.
i'll leave xhtml for who needs it and understands better than me the
differences and the "reason" for xhtml.
>Did you even read the heading that says "W3C Working Draft 27 May 2005"
>and the status section which clearly states:
can i be sincere? no, i didn't. i've read the first page and the pages
i was interested into, but i didn't notice it.
> "This document is the seventh public Working Draft of this
> specification. It should in no way be considered stable,
> and should not be normatively referenced for any purposes
this was the second sentence of a paragraph that didn't interest me :)
looking back, it was more interesting than i thought :)
>There's your first mistake with attempting to use XHTML. It is
>advisable for you to not use .html as the file extension, but rather
thanks. i'll keep it in mind in case i decide to go on with some tries
--but i don't think i'll do--.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
.... parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e scelf sèza ciapé i bajoc!
.
- References:
- does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- From: Gianni Rondinini
- Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- From: Lachlan Hunt
- does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- Prev by Date: Re: does it really exist any xhtml 2?
- Next by Date: Re: wysiwyg-editor
- 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
|
