[thelist] XHTML overrated
Erika Meyer
erika at seastorm.com
Mon Jul 24 09:59:58 CDT 2000
I wrote a mildly-worded "rebuttal" on whatever ALA digest came out
right after this, subject: "reasons to try XHTML."
Since then, Champeon's simple argument of there being no reason _not_
to use XHTML on new sites (if you hand-code) was enough to convince
me to use XHTML on my new sites. seastorm.com is coded XHMTL
transitional & I'm building a new XHTML site, also.
I like it personally, because XHTML transitional forces me to be even
tighter with my code than HTML4 transitional. But I can still build
the same sort of pages I was already building.
I mean, honestly, most browsers support HTML3.2, perhaps better than
HTML4. So why bother to code HTML4?
As for XML as a client-side language, I don't know much since I don't
use XML & the browsers don't support it well... but it would seem
that it would be really nifty in many ways. For example, if I had a
long list of faculty members at the college for which I was building
a page I could make my code perhaps more descriptive...
<member>
<office></office>
<phone></phone>
</member>
... than if I were marking it up as a generic list or in a generic table.
> > http://www.alistapart.com/stories/xhtml/
> >
> > for my arguments why XHTML is not (yet) important.
>
>
>i'm curious of you folks who are coding to the XHTML spec,
>why?
erika at seastorm.com
http://www.seastorm.com
More information about the thelist
mailing list