On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 03:02:45PM +1100, Mark Stanton wrote: > > XHTML is better yet again because of the increased > > signal-to-noise ratio. > > Rubbish! > > One thing that often gets incorrectly assumed is: > > XHTML = clean semantic markup > HTML = lots of redundant nested tables & other crap > > By looking at the source of 100 random sites you might see this > pattern emerging, but it is not a hard & fast rule. > > I can write HTML 4.01 code that is just as clean and semantic as any > XHTML out there. Conversely I could write any sort of rubbish I want, > make sure I put /> at the end of my image tags and then slap on an > XHTML DTD. > > The charter for XHTML was exactly that - take the precise semantics of > HTML 4.01 and make it XML compliant. So XHTML and HTML 4.01 are > semantically identical. > > The fact that we have a history of people writing crap HTML and that > the people who go to the trouble of putting an XHTML doc type on their > files generally care more about there mark up is irrelevant.
You make an excellent point, and I readily admit that I blurred the lines of the discussion from HTML -> XHTML towards non-semantic -> semantic. The only point I can make in defense of my mindset is the significant number of folks out there who seem to slap "transitional" or even "loose" doctypes on their work just so it will validate without having to clean up the markup. You are absolutely right though. -T --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
