Quoting Brandon Stout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm with Lamont on this. From my experience, XHTML strict: 6. If you want to style your document, you have to learn at least a little about CSS. 7. If someone I write web pages for wants a lower standard, it's easier to port XHTML backward to older standards than to port old standards to XHTML. In fact to port XHTML strict back to transitional, you just change the dtd - I'm pretty sure it'll still validate. In every way, I think XHTML is better.
I also use XHTML, whose real purpose is to correct bad HTML practices. The big difference is that XHTML requires you to write good code. You have to nest your tags properly, you have to close tags. That's what makes the rendering faster, because the browser doesn't have to do all the cleanup logic to re-render. The second big advantage is support for XML, which normal HTML doesn't do.
I end up with XHTML transitional because of the level of CSS support between browsers. I would love to be able to use strict, but I have to face reality. I'll take a slight performance hit for compatibility, and make sure I validate.
Now if it's a table-design guy, heck, anything goes, because performance and excellence aren't on his radar anyway.
-- Cole _______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
