On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:14 PM, John Wells wrote:
Can we get a summary of this CAPS lesson? Are we saying that:
- ONLY when serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml, stylesheet
selectors must be all lowercase.
?
Some browsers are sensitive to case when XHTML is served as text/
html. iCab
On 3/12/06, sime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used the following as the foundation of my current approach to style
sheets.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/sample.html
However, I'm told that my code is therefore not XHTML compliant because
of my use of uppercase. So who then is HTML4 relevant to?
Sorry about my poor subject line.
Christian Montoya
HTML 4 style CSS is relevant to HTML 4. If you are using XHTML you
must write your CSS selectors in lowercase.
So that would make HTML4 practically redundant for new web sites?
To Lea de Groot:
It worked in Strict which is why I've been
Christian Montoya
HTML 4 style CSS is relevant to HTML 4. If you are using XHTML you
must write your CSS selectors in lowercase.
On 3/12/06, sime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So that would make HTML4 practically redundant for new web sites?
define practically redundant.
I consider HTML
sime wrote:
Christian Montoya
HTML 4 style CSS is relevant to HTML 4. If you are using XHTML you
must write your CSS selectors in lowercase.
So that would make HTML4 practically redundant for new web sites?
What? I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.
To Lea de Groot:
It
No, it will not work under XHTML at all. The DOCTYPE is irrelevant,
XHTML is case
sensitive and uppercase element selectors will not match anything in
XHTML. It will
only work for text/html.
I have never had a problem with the uppercase not working in strict.
Maybe I'm not defining strict
On 3/13/06, sime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have never had a problem with the uppercase not working in strict.
Maybe I'm not defining strict correctly. Here is a test page which works
in FF,IE6: http://urbits.com/_/test.php
You're serving it as text/html.
On 3/13/06, sime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rephrased, what are the different situations in which you'd use HTML4 over
XHTML1? So far
I've been led to believe (outside of this list) that XHTML is a step forward.
You're serving your XHTML as text/html, so it's effectively being
parsed as HTML
sime wrote:
No, it will not work under XHTML at all. The DOCTYPE is irrelevant,
XHTML is case sensitive and uppercase element selectors will not
match anything in XHTML. It will only work for text/html.
I have never had a problem with the uppercase not working in strict.
Maybe I'm not
Christian said:
I think you might be alluding to using XHTML 1 served as text/html.
It's just as harmful as helpful, IMO, to the future of XML on the web.
People see XHTML pages served as text/html with errors and otherwise
non-xhtml behavior and think that XHTML is just another tag-soup
Joshua Street wrote:
(with the exception of our esteemed friend Internet Explorer, which
doesn't even attempt to render pages served as anything other than
text/html).
...or text/plain. But that's another can of worms :-)
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
sime wrote:
define practically redundant.
I consider HTML 4.01 strict to be practically awesome for new web
sites, but that's more of personal preference.
Which brings me back to my original question question. Rephrased, what
are the different situations in which you'd use HTML4 over
sime wrote:
Which brings me back to my original question question. Rephrased, what
are the different situations in which you'd use HTML4 over XHTML1? So
far I've been led to believe (outside of this list) that XHTML is a step
forward.
Ah, but, grasshopper, to step backward from the precipice
On 3/13/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have also read (no personal first hand knowledge) that there can be
issues between using DOM/DHTML scripts and XHTML. I don't know what
these issues are but why invite trouble.
This arises from non-DOM methods, which are often much simpler to
Jay Gilmore wrote:
I think many standards oriented people have moved or stayed with HTML
4.0X and those who are using XHTML are either using it incorrectly
and unknowing of its proper application or the minute few who are
actually serving it as application/xhtml+xml.
Don't forget those of
Joshua Street wrote:
On 3/13/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have also read (no personal first hand knowledge) that there can be
issues between using DOM/DHTML scripts and XHTML. I don't know what
these issues are but why invite trouble.
This arises from non-DOM methods, which are
16 matches
Mail list logo
