Tee G. Peng wrote:
Thanks to Eugenio, I was reading the article from sitepoint forum.
>>XHTML 1.1 deprecates the lang attribute (in favour of xml:lang) and
also the name attribute for <a> and <map> >>tags. It also adds a number
of elements for Ruby annotations.
I have a question about XHTM 1.1, Ruby annotations and validation.
I do CSS coding for a company that its clients' sites are developed in
Ruby. Every time I receive a job, I am curious why they used XHTML 1.1
- I asked once but it was never answered. Now this part is clear with
the article I'd just read. All jobs I received, the markup are full of
errors (xhtml and html all mixed up), fixing the validation errors
really isn't part of my job but I try my best to clean up as much as
possible (no pay because I was not asked to do it) however sometimes
it's just not possible to help fixing it because almost every page uses
iframe that the code is generated from server.
I learned that XML is about well-formness and with XTHML, no markup
error should exist or browsers give parsing errors - those sites are
served with XML and XHTML 1.1, but none of the sites I visited ever broken.
Why?
tee
Two different meanings of the word "Ruby": "its clients' sites are
developed in Ruby" is the case of the Ruby programming language [1]. "It
also adds a number of elements for Ruby annotations" is the case of
special characters use to annotate ideographic languages [2].
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_programming_language>
[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_character>
It sounds like they don't actually understand what XHTML is or how to
produce it, they just want to believe they're using the latest cool thing.
HTH,
Nick.
--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
