Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
> Tigdh Glesain wrote
>> Am I worrying unnecessarily? Do any of have any 'jeez' to go with my
>> 'whine'? (O:
>>
>
> You have good reasons to worry if your work either isn't up to _perfect_
> XHTML standard from the very start, or someone else may lower its
> quality in the future. There is *no* [error recovery] for properly
> served XHTML.
>
> Browsers _are_ quite "forgiving" for minor - and also some major flaws -
> in HTML, and the same goes for XHTML served as 'html/text'. This makes
> many think their "XHTML decorated" pages are "good enough", since
> browsers render them fine when they are served as 'html/text' and the
> validator says it looks ok. Not necessarily so, as one may learn the
> hard way if/when XHTML is served properly as 'application/xhtml+xml'.
>
I wonder, do you have an example of validated XHTML markup that's
not "perfect"? I.e. markup that, although validated, it's broken XHTML?
Personally, it's all I do, validated as XHTML Strict (after all, that's
why I'm writing).
Rafael.
______________________________________________________________________
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/
