On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
> > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
> >>FAQs?
> >>
> >>If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
> >>1.0 as the standard?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I ran accross an article a few weeks ago that suggested that this wasn't
> >all that great of an idea. Using HTML 4.01 should be just as useful.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I ran a cross a man in the street the other day who told me just the
> opposite ;-)
>
> Seriously, if you to use an argument like this you need to cite the
> article, or at the very least summarise its arguments.
You didn't exactly give a good reason to back up your suggestion of using
xhtml. I just wanted to alert people that there are contrary opinions
and that someone may want to think about this before using the latest fad.
> XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even uses
> the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's hard to
> see why it should be considered a bad thing.
Here is the article:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
