Hi Nick, > > As to the purpose of this being resent - yes. > > Not sure what you mean by that, where does the suggestion of resent > come in?
Moose meant re-sent (reposted)... Unfortunate that the word can be read two ways. As I re-posted it, I'll say why I did. There have been a lot of new members lately and this topic is worth knowing about and I believe that Mark's post was right on the money. The advice I was seeing given on the list gave the impression that converting a site to xhtml was a simple procedure of closing empty elements (<br /> <img... /> <hr /> <meta... /> etc.) making all tags lowercase, escaping ampersands and a few other simple things, and that there were benefits in doing it. For presentational mark-up, there are NO benefits over HTML 4.01 and there are significant problems caused by the change in some circumstances. Using XHTML 1.0 Transitional with a mime type of text/html (usually the default) is apparently valid but may still cause problems, an example being documents (at least on a windows server and no I'm not biased, I just don't use anything else) with mainly hard coded content, with a .cfm extension, being indexed by a Verity search engine. As someone that has gone down this road and come back, I felt it worth pointing out again with links to the details. My advice remains, if you don't need the XML component for data reasons, then it is safer to stick with HTML 4.01. At no stage did I suggest using a meta tag for content type. Not sure where that came from. P ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
