Hello "The Moose",
Anyone else confused?
As to the purpose of this being resent - yes.
Not sure what you mean by that, where does the suggestion of resent come in?
I read through the WSG thread that came from and followed up a lot of the links and if like me you're making the transition to stronger use of CSS based development the xhtml v's html issue seems to be summarised like this:
The issue seems to be whether you are using this...
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html
...as opposed to this...
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml (or text/xml)
...in an xhtml document.
No, this will not do. See here:
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html
That's a good article but the paragraph I followed with...
"The latter is telling the end user agent it's an xml document and therefore apply xml procedures while the former tells it to apply html procedures. therefore an xhtml document with content="text/html will be treated like an html document which negates some of the benefits of using xml in the first place."
...is essentially what it says.
The thing I was bringing up for consideration, was that whether or not the user agent treats the xhtml document as xml or html, the xhtml guidelines are more consistent with regard to actually sitting typing out pages of mark-up. It was merely an added thought for anyone, like myself, trying to make a decision on what to do.
Nick
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*****************************************************
