Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
> Rafael wrote:
>> By the way, I recommend you to use XHTML, as it will be easier to
>> parse for any software.
> IE doesn't understand XHTML at all, and won't parse it unless we serve
> it as broken HTML - or convert it into proper HTML.
Actually, it seems just the doctype is enough to make things better
(for *valid* code), right now it seems that some software are able to
choose the parser to use after reading the doctype (if any). I noticed
that with a site I worked with that was easily serialized and shown on
my cell phone, but it couldn't handle other non-XHTML (or
non-XHTML-as-HTML) pages --but I should have checked if their HTML
validated :)
> If one chooses to use XHTML then it better be perfect[1]. Otherwise some
> User Agents that _do_ understand it may choke on it - regardless of how
> it is served. Not to mention how much fun we can have when our CSS
> doesn't work as intended when we serve XHTML properly - or a User Agent
> interprets it that way.
Interesting... I haven't met too many people that choses to keep
their pages in Quirks mode, actually, you're the first (not sure you
should be proud of that --jk). But I wonder, if you include a doctype
(and your code is valid) how do you preserve the Quirks mode? All the
pages I've seen in your site are in Standard mode.
About your article... the info is useful, not sure about how do you
present it to the readers, but that's just a matter of opinion :)
> regards
> Georg
>
> [1]http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xhtml
______________________________________________________________________
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/
