Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-09 Thread Andy Budd
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Sorry, ended up being a cyclic argument, but you see what I mean...and *that's* what Andy meant (if I may be so bold as to make an educated guess) That's exactly what I meannt. Go for your life :-) Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/

Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Andy Budd
Ian Fenn wrote: Thanks for that, Douglas. Unfortunately my client has accessibility guidelines that insist the pages are built in XHTML Strict. So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible

RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Ian Fenn
Hi Andy, So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving their

RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Geoff Deering
Andy Budd wrote: So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving

Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
Geoff Deering wrote: There are a number of advantages to using HTML/XHTML Strict. [...] If you use transitional, that is exactly what you are doing, and you may need to do it, strict may not work for your design because of current lack of support and other things, but you are using a DTD that is

RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Peter Firminger
Can I just offer an opinion here. When thinking of semantics it sometimes helps to go back 20 years and use pen and paper. If you were writing a big list (numbering each item) in a small notepad you would, on successive pages, keep the numbering going. So on the second page, the first item may

RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Geoff Deering
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: I think what Andy meant (as I've got a feeling he's well in the know when it comes to css and separation of content and presentation) is what the advantages are if you can effectively write strict code while still declaring a transitional doctype. Yes, transitional

Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Jalenack
Hey, I'm new here :-) In response to Geoff's email, XHTML is the web standard of the future. If we implement it now, we are just helping move it along faster. A friend of mine recently created a php script that makes your XHTML into HTML for browsers that cannot support it. You can check it out

Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread James Bennett
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:49:55 +1100, Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? Depends on the client and how they'll be maintaining their site; I've handed sites over to clients before who were

Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
Geoff Deering wrote: That is a misconception. There are differences to the way a rendering parsing engine will work with the different doctypes. Ok, let's narrow down the field to the core issue: what are the rendering differences between XHTML1.0 Transitional and XTHML1.0 Strict? Ok, now the

Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Paul Connolley
On 9 Feb 2005, at 00:49, Geoff Deering wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML (strict or transitional) or even XHTML transitional. That is a misconception. Provided the XHTML document has

Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
Geoff Deering wrote: That is my point, not all these other arguments about where to or where not to use transitional or strict. However, that *was* the point of the original question. To recap: something can't be done in strict which is not presentational, but nevertheless has been dropped from

Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-08 Thread James Bennett
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:50:56 +1100, Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a document that validates as doctype Strict, then why declare it as transitional? For what reason are such decisions made? That is my point, not all these other arguments about where to or where not to use

RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-07 Thread Ian Fenn
Douglas wrote: Why not switch to XHTML Transitional for the page that you want to use the start= attribute on? Thanks for that, Douglas. Unfortunately my client has accessibility guidelines that insist the pages are built in XHTML Strict. All the best, -- Ian Fenn Chopstix Media