Malcolm Nixon wrote... >This is hardly the place for a debate on XHTML v HTML - so appoloogies >to others for this off topic post, I know it causes fierce debate >between professional web people. l > I agree! We should discuss this on the waterway webmasters' discussion group that you were proposing!
>But for all those references - I could quote many others who say that >XHTML is the way to the future, certain in some authorititive manner. > True! There is much authoritative argument on both sides. If this was a clear-cut matter then XHTML would be far more dominant by this time (after 8 years). >perhaps the authorititive is World Wide Web Consortium W3C, who write >the standards. >W3C website is written in XHTML Only because they felt they had to jump on the bandwagon. Those pages do nothing than could not be done in plain HTML. Sorry that this is probably of little interest to many readers. I'll shut up now. Incidentally, trying desperately to get back on topic, the Waterscape site uses XHTML but has rather a lot of coding errors! -- Martin Clark Internet Boaters' Database http://www.boaterweb.co.uk Pennine Waterways Website http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk
