David Dorward wrote:
On 14 Sep 2007, at 10:37, David Little wrote:
Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future,
I was under the impression that you'll also be able to write HTML 5 in
XHTML syntax (as XHTML 5, obviously different from XHTML 2 which is a
different
Marghanita da Cruz
While exploring the standards compliance/XHTML/HTML issue,
I was surprised by the variation in the display of Alt text.
On the small sample, the XHTML/HTML did not seem to make a
jot of difference.
The screen shots are available at
Patrick Lauke wrote:
Marghanita da Cruz
While exploring the standards compliance/XHTML/HTML issue,
I was surprised by the variation in the display of Alt text.
On the small sample, the XHTML/HTML did not seem to make a
jot of difference.
The screen shots are available at
On 13 Sep 2007, at 23:09, S.R. Emerson wrote:
Is there a particular reason you have specified XHTML?
So it is upgradeable for the future.
Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future,
converting from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0 isn't difficult anyway, and
Appendix C
On 14 Sep 2007, at 10:37, David Little wrote:
Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future,
I was under the impression that you'll also be able to write HTML 5
in XHTML syntax (as XHTML 5, obviously different from XHTML 2 which
is a different concept?).
They are
Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future,
I was under the impression that you'll also be able to write HTML 5 in XHTML
syntax (as XHTML 5, obviously different from XHTML 2 which is a different
concept?). This might not be the case of course -- could anyone shed any
David Dorward wrote:
I was under the impression that you'll also be able to write HTML 5
in XHTML syntax (as XHTML 5, obviously different from XHTML 2 which
is a different concept?).
They are still planning this, but the point is that HTML is not dead,
(real) XHTML is still badly supported
Yes, but it's nowhere near completion or indeed absolute that it will go
ahead anyway.
So, there's no point in lowering your standards until you have to.
On Fri, September 14, 2007 10:14 am, David Dorward wrote:
Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future,
converting
S.R. Emerson wrote:
Does any one have a recommendation on a club management system that:
1. is accessible.
2. Uses XHTML.
Is there a particular reason you have specified XHTML?
3. Does not use tables preferably.
4. Supports separate departments based on location.
5. Each location head can
Is there a particular reason you have specified XHTML?
So it is upgradeable for the future.
S.R. Emerson
Accrete Web Solutions
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
10 matches
Mail list logo
