On Jul 17, 2009, at 1:27 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jul 14, 2009, at 05:58, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
I wonder, what were the advantages of going with XHTML to begin with?
I haven't been terribly active in web development in some years, but
when I was, XHTML was the new hotness and the recommended way to
code websites. Perhaps Juan had the same background when he coded
the current version of the site. (I believe it was Juan, yes?)
Yes, it was me who coded the "new" website back some years ago. And
yes, that's my precise background and that's why I chose xhtml over
html. Looking back, though, I do admit it was most probably a mistake
to go for 1.1 rather than just 1.0 or maybe even 1.0 transitional, but
it's been so long that I don't remember why I made that particular
decision (could have been an innocent copy & paste operation, a
Dreamweaver preset, gremlins, who knows).
So, if the site now works even on IE 6 (thanks to Ryan's work!), I
don't see what the point is in changing the doctype for the sole sake
of cross-browser compatibility (IE 6? what more can you ask for??? ;).
I would say, lets safe that energy for another facelift & revamp of
the entire site, even I find my work to be showing its age pretty bad
already, that design is so Safari 1.0 days!
Regards,...
- jmpp
PS: I need not say, we can of course use a different, more appropriate
doctype if a complete redesign is carried out ;)
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
