That's what I was thinking. I've been doing HTML since 3.2 was the current version. Since then I've done HTML 4.01 pages - lots of them - but I decided to learn XHTML just to see what the difference was after I'd read more about it. I just find XHTML in general easier to debug than HTML. I won't really bother explaining that - I guess everyone has their different preferences. I just believe that in the long run, XHTML is a better road to take than HTML. I get these gut feelings sometimes, and this is just one of them. Time will tell if I hold any truth or not.
Thanks for the reference to that article outlining the mistakes - I guess I'll stop opening new windows :) .. And Chris - I've been following your CSS journey and from the looks of your page I'd say its coming along well. Like Mark said "Seriously mate, it will cost you 30 seconds and save you hours later." - couldn't agree more. [RE: from Mark => Tim] HTML 1, 2, and 3 still has support.. but I keep asking myself why anyone would want to use any of them. Of course HTML lets you get away with a lot of errors and is very forgiving. And of course browsers will still 'take a guess' at how to render invalid XHTML markup - but I don't go by what renders, I go by what the validator at W3C tells me. I know that there is a good chance that my vaild XHTML (or HTML for that matter) documents will render correctly in a slew of browsers. The choice to use XHTML (any version) at least on my part comes from (1) Wanting to keep current with the current standards (2) follow Zeldman's advice blindly like a psychotic Lemming and (3) I believe XHTML encourages (requires) more care to how the code is written. I would LOVE to see some future version of xhtml come out that simply WILL NOT render if it is invaild. Would absolutely love it. I'm used to the rigidness of languages from tooling with C++ and BASIC back in high school. Be it mental or be it coincidence, but I think I write cleaner code to start off with using xhtml than I can with html. It's just easier not to screw something up. And it's newer. I know people that still use Windows 95 instead of XP because they believe its better. To each his own - but I'll enjoy my XP all the same! Ryan ---------------------- "Heck with kids - standards are our future." Webmaster, http://www.theward.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hill, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:35 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] A quick XHTMLquestion Or why follow standards at all? XHTML is a newer standard than HTML, and people move to newer standards because of what they can provide. If you could move to XHTML (ie moving to newer technology for future compatibility etc.) and keep a consistent look of your page without restricting your audience then would it not be best practice? Tim Hill Computer Associates Graphic Artist tel: +612 9937 0792 fax: +612 9937 0546 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
