> However. Apparently my fears of using HTML making it more difficult to
> migrate to XML later were groundless; Ian tells me it would be trivial
> to write a utility to convert from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0.
Yes - it's called HTML Tidy; the W3C have written it :-)
> And in that
> case, I have no objection to using HTML (apart from my own personal bias
> towards XHTML, which is a result of having inadvertently written all my
> Web pages in XHTML since before XML was invented).
What? With the trailing slashes on standalone elements ( <BR /> ) and
everything? :-)
> I cannot take seriously, however, any suggestion that we use Strict
> rather than Transitional. People would laugh at us. `Ooo, if their Web
> browser is so great, why is their Web site is all gray and boring?' We
AIUI, it would only be grey and boring in NS 4.x. Everything else that
matters supports style sheets well enough, doesn't it? Or am I sadly
deluded?
Is anyone going to make an argument for us writing a site that looks good
(as opposed to readable, which is fair enough) in version 3 browsers? No?
Good :-)
Gerv
