[thelist] Re: a horse! my kingdom for an XHTML horse! was RE: [thelist] Tablesvs Layers

[James Spahr]

on 9/15/00 9:42 PM, aardvark at roselli at earthlink.net wrote:

>> From the client standpoint, XHTML =
>> forwards-compatibility.
> 
> ahhh... cuz browsers in the future won't support HTML...
> after all, it's so radically different from XHTML and all...
> 
> i don't mean to sound snotty, but i do... anyway, if you
> have a DTD, what does it matter?

There is no reason why a browser can't support all the variations of xHTML &
HTML, if the documents include a DTD.

IMHO - all documents should be assumed to be HTML 3.2 unless these is a
doctype. Then we can move to xHTML goodness (modules and all) and not loose
support for legacy coded pages

They key point is - it should not be all or nothing situation - browsers can
(and some do) change behavior based on the DTD.

James.
http://spahr.org/