On Nov 1, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Brian Hazelton wrote:
> I generally use xhtml 1.0 strict and find it to be very consistent
> with
> internet explorer 6+ and find that I employ very little if any
> workarounds for internet explorer so I tend to disagree that html
> works
> better than xhtml. What
David Dorward wrote:
> 2009/10/31 Charles Miller :
>
>
>> Would you mind commenting on why HTML 4.01 Strict? And what the differences
>> are? This interests me.
>>
>
> Transitional is (more or less) Strict + Legacy junk that should be avoided.
>
> HTML is better supported than XHTML. (Since
2009/10/31 Charles Miller :
> Would you mind commenting on why HTML 4.01 Strict? And what the differences
> are? This interests me.
Transitional is (more or less) Strict + Legacy junk that should be avoided.
HTML is better supported than XHTML. (Since Internet Explorer doesn't
support XHTML, you
(this was initially sent to the individual, not the list. sorry.)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Charles Miller
> Date: October 31, 2009 9:23:46 AM CDT
> To: David Dorward
> Subject: Re: [css-d] hello this is my first post i just can get this
> to look right in IE-any
>
&
2009/10/31 andre petyan :
> i know i have a lot of mistakes.
> please ignore anything that will not fix or help me.
Sometimes it is hard to know which errors are directly contributing to
a problem and which are not. It is better to fix errors when they are
spotted.
The biggest problem you have is
i know i have a lot of mistakes.
please ignore anything that will not fix or help me.
look at this page in Firefox and then in IE i want the page to look exactly
like it does in Firefox.
the site is actually already published.
princesslimousine.net
the link to the css file is
http://princesslim
