Beth Lee wrote: > What would be a more suitable doctype? A link to a good explanation > would be helpful. (This is a web certification project, and the > course instructs us to use this doctype, so I'm not sure I can change > it on this website, but I'd like to know the pros and cons for the > future, or maybe for arguing with the instructors :) .)
You have standardized cards on your hand :-) Tell them that 'XHTML 1.1' *SHOULD NOT* be served as 'text/html' (which is what you're doing now), and point to the W3C document that says so... <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary> ...in case your instructors haven't read the standards they tell you to follow. Serving XHTML 1.1 properly - as 'application/xhtml+xml' - means it won't show up in Internet Explorer, since that browser doesn't have a clue what properly served 'XHTML' is all about. Thus, 'XHTML 1.0 Strict' _might be_ a more suitable doctype, since we *MAY* serve 'XHTML 1.0' as 'text/html' so all browsers understand it. If your instructors also insists that all projects shall be rendered by Internet Explorer, then 'HTML 4.01' Strict is an even better choice since 'HTML 4.01' *SHOULD* always be served as 'text/html'. The choice may affect how well your knowledge holds up after the certification project is over, so better get 'doctypes' and 'MIME-types' right from the start. A bit more on the subject... <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xhtml> regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
