To me, tags like iframe are being used and quite a lot and do do away with them, is in many ways the kiss of death for movements like this, as you will be faught all the way. Even though the tag is a wrapper (defined in DTD) in many ways for the HTML Object it still leaves me wondering why tags like iframe aren't valid? to me they seemed harmless along with tags like B to STRONG so forth.
Not to mention the web is looking to shift away from browsers, and move more to native XML packets to run its presentation layer on applications (ie MXML, AXML, XFORMS etc). It just seems lately to be a futile battle, and extensive one and yet no real gains? why would a developer go out of his/her way to learn XHTML?
I personally use strict XHTML as its the only real DTD that fixes the Box Model bug in both IE & Mozilla (consistencey). Its got added pain, but i'm used to it now.. but others well they'd go "too hard pile"
Regards Scott Barnes http://www.mossyblog.com
Brian Cummiskey wrote:
Scott Barnes wrote:
Are you absolutly positive about iframes not being available in strict XHTML? because I've got one working as we speak?
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
??
working and being valid are two different things all together. ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
