RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread Chris Taylor
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread David Dorward
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

RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread Chris Taylor
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread David Dorward
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread Micky Hulse
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread cat soul
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread Micky Hulse
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread Micky Hulse
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread wilbur . j . pereira
@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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread cat soul
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread Micky Hulse
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

RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-11 Thread Webb, KerryA
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

RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread Thierry Koblentz
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread David Dorward
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

RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread Ted Drake
...@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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread Mathew Robertson
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,

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread Chris F.A. Johnson
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread cat soul
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

RE: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread Ted Drake
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML or HTML?

2010-11-10 Thread David Storey
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

Re: [WSG] XHTML v HTML (also a question about GoLive)

2004-05-18 Thread Neerav
No idea about Adobe Golive but Dreamweaver MX 2004 ver 7.01 can be set to output XHTML compliant code. -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development IT consultancy Mordechai Peller wrote: A potential client asked me: How does a xhtml site differ from an html site and will I be able to

Re: [WSG] XHTML v HTML (also a question about GoLive)

2004-05-18 Thread Hugh Todd
Mordechai, I think the XHTML/HTML issue has been canvassed by more knowledgeable members in the past on this list, with some advocating for the use of HTML 4.01 for reasons you may like to search in the archives. (Look particularly for posts by Peter Firminger.) That said, you are probably