[thelist] The Web's future: XHTML 2.0

Peter-Paul Koch gassinaumasis at hotmail.com
Sat Sep 21 12:04:01 CDT 2002

>Personally I uses xhtml 1.1 strict for _everything_ I write (since april),
>I don't see the point in not doing so.
>I don't know anything about the politics or the deep technical or
>philosophical arguments behind it, but I do know that it lets me write nice
>clean, logical code and the validator is very picky when I feed it my
>This helps me pick up on errors (ok, not always 'errors' but badly written
>code) which would slip by using a lesser DTD.
>I fail to see what's wrong with that.

Nothing at all. If XHTML 1.1 Strict works for you and lets you code the
sites you want to make, by all means use it.

What I'm objecting to is the idea that using XHTML is a *requirement* for
making websites. It isn't and it never will be.

><top-of-head statement with no background reading done>
>Maybe you think the adoption of XHTML has some terrible connotations for
>the web, but I think it's something we should all be using.
></top-of-head statement with no background reading done>

It doesn't have any terrible connotations, except for the meaningless
dropping of necessary attributes like target.


Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

More information about the thelist mailing list