From: cat soul
Sent: 10 November 2010 23:32
Great! Most everyone else is saying HTML5 is 10 years off and not to
code for it, not to worry about it until then.
HTML5 as a finished, published spec may be 10 years off, but there are plenty
of HTML5 features you can use right now with some
On 11 Nov 2010, at 09:18, Chris Taylor wrote:
HTML5 as a finished, published spec may be 10 years off, but there are plenty
of HTML5 features you can use right now with some careful handling of older
(IE) browsers. The future is already among us.
In fact, this is HTML5-style - !doctype
From: David Dorward
Sent: 11 November 2010 10:30
On 11 Nov 2010, at 09:18, Chris Taylor wrote:
In fact, this is HTML5-style - !doctype html - but will work fine in all
browsers (as far as I know).
When you come to perform basic QA using a validator, on the other hand, you
get very
On 11 Nov 2010, at 10:50, Chris Taylor wrote:
From: David Dorward
Sent: 11 November 2010 10:30
On 11 Nov 2010, at 09:18, Chris Taylor wrote:
In fact, this is HTML5-style - !doctype html - but will work fine in all
browsers (as far as I know).
When you come to perform basic QA using a
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Chris Taylor
chris.tay...@figureout.com wrote:
And there's Andy Clarke's new book Hardboiled Web Design which deals with
HTML5 and more: http://hardboiledwebdesign.com/
So is HTML5 ready, as far as http://ishtml5readyyet.com/ sees it isn't the
same as can I
On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Micky Hulse wrote:
I just finished reading HTML5 for web designers, and I thought it was
a pretty good introduction to HTML5.
http://books.alistapart.com/products/html5-for-web-designers
An easy read. Very short book.
Cheers,
Micky
I see that one of the choices
Howdy!
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM, cat soul cats...@thinkplan.org wrote:
I see that one of the choices is the eBook form...can that be read on a Mac?
Good question!
Looks like the ebook includes PDF, ePub, and mobi formats.
I am sure there are ePub readers on Mac. I usually don't mind
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Micky Hulse
mickyhulse.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like the ebook includes PDF, ePub, and mobi formats.
Looks like one of the chapters is online:
A Brief History of Markup
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/a-brief-history-of-markup/
I thought that chapter
@webstandardsgroup.org
Reply-to: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?
Howdy!
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM, cat soul cats...@thinkplan.org wrote:
I see that one of the choices is the eBook form...can that be read on a Mac?
Good question!
Looks like the ebook includes PDF, ePub, and mobi
On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Micky Hulse wrote:
Howdy!
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM, cat soul cats...@thinkplan.org
wrote:
I see that one of the choices is the eBook form...can that be read
on a Mac?
Good question!
Looks like the ebook includes PDF, ePub, and mobi formats.
I am
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, cat soul cats...@thinkplan.org wrote:
thanks for that...I'll have to check it out. That title looks like a
must-have...they offer another for CSS as well, endorsed by none other than
Eric Meyer.
Yah, I think I will pick that one up also! :)
CSS3 For Web
On 10 Nov 2010, at 22:34, cat soul wrote:
Any thoughts on which we ought to be using
HTML, since it works in IE 9 without having to pretend it is HTML.
4.01, since it is a stable recommendation with mature QA tools (unless you
have a need for features added in HTML5 and are willing to
Any thoughts on which we ought to be using, and what information
ought to be up at top of an HTML page, along with !DOCTYPE, etc?
Thank you,
cs
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
Any thoughts on which we ought to be using, and what information
ought to be up at top of an HTML page, along with !DOCTYPE, etc?
I'd go with !DOCTYPE html with nothing above that
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz
On 10 Nov 2010, at 22:34, cat soul wrote:
Any thoughts on which we ought to be using
HTML, since it works in IE 9 without having to pretend it is HTML.
4.01, since it is a stable recommendation with mature QA tools (unless you have
a need for features added in HTML5 and are willing to life
...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:54 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?
Any thoughts on which we ought to be using, and what information
ought to be up at top of an HTML page, along with !DOCTYPE, etc?
I'd go with !DOCTYPE
Here is a reasonably good example:
http://www.texaswebdevelopers.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=136
http://www.texaswebdevelopers.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=136In
particular, the 'dir' and 'lang' attributes - most people just assume that
english is the only language...
regards,
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, cat soul wrote:
Any thoughts on which we ought to be using, and what information ought to be
up at top of an HTML page, along with !DOCTYPE, etc?
The first line should be a doctype. I recommend either 4.01 strict
or HTML5.
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:34 PM, cat soul cats...@thinkplan.org wrote:
Any thoughts on which we ought to be using,
To cut a _long_ story very short, if you have to ask this question, use HTML.
See also:
http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml
On Nov 10, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Ted Drake wrote:
Thierry's right. It's time to start making those baby steps into
HTML5.
But you'll also need to add your charset and lang definition
!doctype html
html lang=en
head
meta charset=UTF-8
Great! Most everyone else is saying HTML5 is 10
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:34 PM, cat soul cats...@thinkplan.org wrote:
Any thoughts on which we ought to be using,
To cut a _long_ story very short, if you have to ask this question, use HTML.
See also:
http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml
http
On 11 Nov 2010, at 00:17, Mathew Robertson wrote:
Here is a reasonably good example:
http://www.texaswebdevelopers.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=136
In particular, the 'dir' and 'lang' attributes - most people just assume
that english is the only language…
dir isn’t needed unless
OK. For the last almost 24 hours, I have been trying to get the link to the
results posted on the server to work, but have failed miserably. The results
were made public to subscribers of the newsletters they mail out every
month. They have not yet decided to use the Internet to mail out the
I know that most, if not possible to say all, Web page designers use
JavaScript for form validation. During a recent poll done by a few local
colleges, 41.2% of the people who responded stated that they would rather
not have to enable JavaScript, but on rare occasion they do for certain
sites that
Remember to use server side validation and you don't
need to worry about rewriting standards :)
Brett Patterson wrote:
I
know that most, if not possible to say all, Web page designers use
_javascript_ for form validation. During a recent poll done by a few
local colleges, 41.2% of the people
OK. I had forgotten you could use server-side validation. Thanks.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember to use server side validation and you don't need to worry about
rewriting standards :)
Brett Patterson wrote:
I know that most, if not
Hi,
What was the poll and are the results publicly available?
There is a difference in asking if a user would like to have javascript
turned off and them actually having it turned off, check:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2008/November/javas.php only 6% have it
off, and many of these will
Therefore, I was wondering if it would be feasible to include a standard
that would use a syntax similar (does not actually *have* to be this way)
to selected=selected? In which case, the syntax would be
required=required. Or, if it is an email input (i.e. Your e-mail
address:input type=text
So exactly what behavior is mandated for UAs implementing HTML5 if
a form is submitted with a 'required' element unsatisfied?
If I'm reading
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#required0correctly,
the form just won't submit if a required field is empty. Not
sure about the UI
From: Bas V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I need to scroll a php/mysql generated list of text with url's within a page
whilst using up-down arrows rather then a scrollbar.
It needs however to be XHTML Strict valid and that is where my problem
starts...
A non-Strict example of how it exactly has to look
Try jQuery..
Thanks,
Srini
www.srinivasaperumal.com
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Bas V [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to scroll a php/mysql generated list of text with url's within a
page whilst using up-down arrows rather then a scrollbar.
It needs however to be XHTML Strict valid and
check following jQuery samples...
http://www.nabble.com/jScrollPane:-horizontal-scroll-and-dynamic-height-width-td16312365s27240.html
http://www.pixeline.be/test/markitup_bug/
http://kelvinluck.com/assets/jquery/jScrollPane/ajax_example.html
Thanks,
Srini Perumal
User Interface / Web Standards
Thanks for the replies, much appreciated!
There is plenty out there available I see, you just need to know where to look
for it :)
Cheers.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
I need to scroll a php/mysql generated list of text with url's within a page
whilst using up-down arrows rather then a scrollbar.
It needs however to be XHTML Strict valid and that is where my problem starts...
A non-Strict example of how it exactly has to look and work:
Try jQuery..
Thanks,
Srini
www.srinivasaperumal.com
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Bas V [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to scroll a php/mysql generated list of text with url's within a
page whilst using up-down arrows rather then a scrollbar.
It needs however to be XHTML Strict valid and
From: Bas V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I need to scroll a php/mysql generated list of text with url's within a page
whilst using up-down arrows rather then a scrollbar.
It needs however to be XHTML Strict valid and that is where my problem
starts...
A non-Strict example of how it exactly has to look
check following jQuery samples...
http://www.nabble.com/jScrollPane:-horizontal-scroll-and-dynamic-height-width-td16312365s27240.html
http://www.pixeline.be/test/markitup_bug/
http://kelvinluck.com/assets/jquery/jScrollPane/ajax_example.html
Thanks,
Srini Perumal
User Interface / Web Standards
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:
--
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Tee G. Peng
Sent: 08 September 2007 04:35
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML+Voice
Hi Philippe, a quick question before I forgot to ask.
A bit off-topic: yes I use VoiceOver sometimes
Has anybody done this on your (and client) site yet?
It's showing up on Opera site, so I reckon it's supported for 9.50
Alpha? And Safri Beta 3 too?
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/xhtml-voice-by-example/
tee
***
List
On Sep 8, 2007, at 9:32 AM, Tee G. Peng wrote:
It's showing up on Opera site, so I reckon it's supported for 9.50
Alpha? And Safri Beta 3 too?
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/xhtml-voice-by-example/
That page doesn't work as described on Safari, seen from here (latest
WebKit nightly
Hi Philippe, a quick question before I forgot to ask.
A bit off-topic: yes I use VoiceOver sometimes; the built-in voice
options are awful, so far Vicki is the only one I can listen for more
than 15 mintues. I'd been wanting to purhcase a pleasant voice sample
but don't know where to look.
Hello again!
Firefox 3.0 will support incremental rendering of true XHTML, since bug
18333 has been fixed: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18333
and http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.0a2/releasenotes/
One argument in support of XHTML has been speed (seldom heard today,
On 7 Jan 2006, at 3:35 pm, Lynne Pope wrote:
On 1/7/06, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended'
CSS from
the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make
IE/win
behave.
OTOH: hiding something in a
Lynne Pope wrote:
The validators themselves tell you that they have limitations. A
page can validate according to the W3C online service but, in fact,
not be valid.
I think Philippe covered the validity-points pretty well.
It all comes down to how closely any developer wishes to adhere to
Leslie Riggs wrote:
What's a person to do? When is it appropriate to use one of the XHTML
DTDs and when to use HTML 4.01, and what about those XHTML
Transitional DTDs? I guess I'm looking for a bit of a summarization
clarification of this concept.
Leslie Riggs
The approach I use (I'm
I didn't want my first contribution to the group to be a comment on another person's website, but as you said you are learning Bob I thought you might find this helpful. The problem with browser sniffing is that you have to be very careful to serve the right information. At the moment, your site
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Lynne In IE, your site shows meta
http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml;
charset=utf-8. It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A
little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;)
Roberto
Hi Roberto,
When I 'view source' in FF, I get the following:
?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' ?
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN'
'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'
html xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' xml:lang='en'
If I look in IE, I get
- Messaggio originale -
Da: designer[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Roberto,
When I 'view source' in FF, I get the following:
[cut]
Are you getting something different?
Roberto:
You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in
the
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inviato: 06/01/06 14.26.37
A: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgwsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Oggetto: Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site
doesn't' actually comply
Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:
Roberto:
You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference
in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it
What's the point of defining the stylesheet both with the xml-stylesheet
instruction AND the (valid, and clearly defined in
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Patrick H. Lauke[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inviato: 06/01/06 16.54.27
A: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgwsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Oggetto: Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site
doesn't' actually comply]
Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG
Hi Lynne,
Thanks for your comments.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it 'is' sent as text/html - that's the
point. OK, it does say that it is application/xhtml+xml in the meta tag,
but that is just ignored when it's sent with the correct mime type.
Also, try as I might, I can't get it to be
Hi Bob,Your splash page validates in xhtml, but the rest of your site has css errors:
Errors
URI : http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/gam/altgam/altgam.cssLine: 6 Context : html
Property text-justify doesn't exist
: newspaper
Line: 62 Context : #container
Property text-justify doesn't exist
:
designer wrote:
If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagues
will tell me?
Bob, I don't think you are missing anything !important so far :-)
Lynne Pope wrote:
Your splash page validates in xhtml, but the rest of your site has
css errors:
Errors URI :
On 1/7/06, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended' CSS from
the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make IE/win
behave.
OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non-existent
stylesheet',
Patrick said:
and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to
1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few
more things to look out for ... not being allowed any character
entities apart from the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and
apo; - so things like copy; for instance will not be
List of XHTML 1.1 entities, served as application/xhtml+xml :
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/entities/entities-11.xhtml
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
**
The
Kenny Graham wrote:
Patrick said:
and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to
1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few
more things to look out for ... not being allowed any character
entities apart from the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and
apo; - so things like copy; for
On 6 Jan 2006, at 10:50 am, Kenny Graham wrote:
List of XHTML 1.1 entities, served as application/xhtml+xml :
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/entities/entities-11.xhtml
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
If
Kenny Graham wrote:
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
Philippe wrote:
If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm
afraid, you'll have to go back...
If these entities are not allowed when served as
Patrick wrote:
*browser support* for named entities can be flaky
Sorry I missed post
I'm still surprised that Safari has limited support
Thanks
Jason
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
On 6 Jan 2006, at 1:42 pm, Jason Turnbull wrote:
Kenny Graham wrote:
I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of
sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such.
Philippe wrote:
If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm
afraid, you'll have to go back...
hya
I use this W3C document as a reference to know which tag may go inside other:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/xhtml-modularization-19990406/DTD/doc/xhtml1-t.elt.html
I never found nothing else like that (such a DTD visual
representation), but what I want to know is: is it the latest version
?
Spark wrote:
I use this W3C document as a reference to know which tag may go inside other:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/xhtml-modularization-19990406/DTD/doc/xhtml1-t.elt.html
I never found nothing else like that (such a DTD visual
representation), but what I want to know is: is it the latest
hi,
On 12/22/05, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spark wrote:
I use this W3C document as a reference to know which tag may go inside
other:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/xhtml-modularization-19990406/DTD/doc/xhtml1-t.elt.html
I never found nothing else like that (such a DTD
Spark wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html
Although is a useful list, it's not good for what I pointed: knowing
what can go inside what. Like can I put a Heading tag inside a DT?
(no) , or can a put an A here in the BODY ? (no , you can't). Does
anyone have any suggestion ?
Bert Doorn wrote:
I code in xhtml Strict and serve it as text/html. My code is
future-proof, valid and well structured.
Future proof from what? Do you really think any browser will ever drop
support for HTML4?
If I code in HTML4, there is less need for writing properly structured
...
I code in xhtml Strict and serve it as text/html. My code is
future-proof, valid and well structured. If I code in HTML4,
there is less need for writing properly structured documents.
Too bad if quality of code depends on choice between HTML and XHTML.
If at some point in the future
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
It is pretty easy to check, all we need is some online tool which, given an url
can resend page's content with application/xhtml+xml. Then grab those
XHTML pages and see what happens.
Try Hixie's content-type proxy.
2005/12/2, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
It is pretty easy to check, all we need is some online tool which, given an
url
can resend page's content with application/xhtml+xml. Then grab those
XHTML pages and see what happens.
Try Hixie's content-type proxy.
On 12/2/05, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2005/12/2, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
It is pretty easy to check, all we need is some online tool which, given
an url
can resend page's content with application/xhtml+xml. Then grab those
XHTML
Christian Montoya wrote:
2005/12/2, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Try Hixie's content-type proxy.
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/cgi/content-type-proxy/content-type-proxy
Is this a trick?
hr at the bottom of the page prevents it from handling xml. Any sort
of xml. Now how am I going to
On 12/2/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/2/05, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2005/12/2, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
It is pretty easy to check, all we need is some online tool which,
given an url
can resend page's
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/wrongWithIE/?chapter=XHTML
...if you use the ?xml? declaration..., then it will trigger quirks mode in
IE6
Right... rather than jumping to conclusions I was just wanting to make
sure you were telling a beginner at
So, to summarise why you keep saying there's no support for XHTML in IE
- not supporting XHTML's HTTP header,
- not being able to put ?xml ... ? above the doctype,
- the internal rendering engine being a tagsoup parser, rather than an
XML parser.
And therefore this means IE doesn't even have
G'day
If you're not using the right MIME type, you may
as well be using HTML4, as you're just relying on
browsers error recovery techniques to understand XHTML.
I code in xhtml Strict and serve it as text/html. My code is
future-proof, valid and well structured. If I code in HTML4,
Hi Everyone,
Thank you all so much for the great information, that helped a lot.
I agree with those of you who said that one could stay with html, of course
as long as one uses clean and valid code :)
Thanks again
Lisa
At 11:03 AM 11/25/2005, you wrote:
I guess I am wondering what the
My personal feeling is that you should be using the HTML 4.01 doctype.
Your not going to achive anything by using an XHTML doctype and it's
technically invalid. Remember *every User Agent will (and should) treat
your code as HTML*. If you put a skirt on a man it won't make him a
woman. Weather or
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
