Dean Matthews wrote:
On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote:
where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain
On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
On 13 May 2008, at 01:36, Nikita The Spider The Spider wrote:
One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke.
... and IE7 and IE8.
Adding support for XHTML hasn't been a priority for Microsoft
(presumably
The Spider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1
Of the doctypes that my validator
nature.
- Original Message -
From: Vlad Alexander (XStandard) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
HTH wrote:
...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HTH wrote:
...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
you're
where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain
On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.
Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Nikita,
Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on
XHTML 1.1-formatted code
Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template written
for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this
On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote:
where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain
On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in
the
w3c css validator.
thanks for the info.
cheers,
dwain
On 5/13/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, dwain wrote:
where is it and is it incorporated into firefox yet?
dwain
On 5/12/08, Dean Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
From time to time over the past several years I have served web pages as XHTML
1.0 with content (MIME) type text/html to IE Browsers and with content (MIME)
type application/xhtml+xml to Browsers that recognize that content type -- via
Content Negotiation.
My current Home Page --
Nikita wrote:
the example you provided isn't valid XHTML.
I think you may have misunderstood. The example in this screen shot:
http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif
.. shows how to embed XHTML 1.1 content into an HTML 4.01 Transitional page
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nikita wrote:
the META tag would have to end in a / and then it
wouldn't be valid HTML anymore.
Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard.
Even the W3C validator will accept
Nikita wrote:
I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will
not get the result you expect.
Comes back as valid HTML, as I expected. The validator did flag / as
warnings which it did not a few years back when the example was originally
created. But W3C's validator warning
Hi,
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits? I've read up on
what the differences are but I was under the belief IE won't support it
without a particular hack.
Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
point using right now if your site is 1.0
On 12 May 2008, at 22:42, Simon wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits? I've
read up on
what the differences are but I was under the belief IE won't support
it
without a particular hack.
Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1
Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
not all, were sent with the wrong media type.
Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?
Very very generally, I've found it's less critical which standard you use
than whether your stuff validates in your chosen standard.
Secondly, I see a lot of sites that
One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML
HTH wrote:
...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
you're generating two copies of all of your content
Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only
and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.
dwain
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
On May 12, 2008, at 11:13 PM, dwain wrote:
and if you are wanting valid css then css3 will throw up errors in the
w3c css validator.
Not if you use the CSS level 3 validator ;)
***
List Guidelines:
21 matches
Mail list logo
