"Spruell, Darren-Perot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But using it because it is the correct thing to do and is the > standard by which web browsers are designed to render hypertext is > not stupid.
Too bad neither of those are the case. Html is the standard by which web browsers are designed to render hypertext, some browsers also render xhtml, some just pretend its html. And unless you serve your xhtml documents with an xml content type, then browsers that do support xhtml treat it as html anyways. Of course, if you do use an xml content type then IE users cannot view your website. Xhtml is a solution looking for a problem, Microsoft's broken browser just makes it even worse. > On which planet is that the case? XHTML is the vehicle of proper web > design, today. To call CSS good and XHTML bad is dumb considering > they are both standards which are picking up the pieces of HTML that > are being (have been) deprecated. Xhtml is the vehicle of moronic "web designers" who don't even understand it and insist on following stupid fads. And you do want to use xhtml because all the cool kids are doing it, you just admitted it. Html is still a standard too, and it still works fine. And Xhtml isn't "bad", its "stupid". It does not do anything for you when making typical websites, including the openbsd site. Using xhtml serves no purpose at all, unless you lock out IE users, and even then the benefit is all but worthless. > Regardless of your outlook on the standards bit, this is true. I > still agree that the current website is fine as it is. Sounds like > the only problem is that some folks are finding lynx inconvenient to > use on the website. Shame. And lynx treats xhtml as html no matter what content type you use, so the suggestion that you have to use xhtml to "fix" the current perfectly fine design for lynx is moronic. CSS works with html too. Adam
