[thelist] ISO HTML

[David Dorward]

On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 12:12, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:

> If I decided that ISO-HTML wasn't worth pursuing, I'd probably switch to XHTML
> 1.1 instead. Any thoughts?

Given that XHTML "SHOULD NOT"[1] be served as text/html, the hoops you
have to jump through to get it to work in Internet Explorer are rather
nasty, and you still cut out a large portion of your potential audience
- its probably best to avoid 1.1 unless you have a real need for it
(i.e. Ruby).

XHTML 1.0 Strict is a better bet, but even that has some issues. Unless
you plan on using XML tools to process it, you are probably best off
sticking to HTML 4.01 Strict.

[1] Not my caps
-- 
David Dorward       <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/>   <http://dorward.me.uk/>