|
Posted by Chuck on May 21, 2005, 5:23 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
used?
What possible, immediate, benefit would there be? I am at a loss to see
what, pragmatic, difference it would make.
|
|
Posted by David Dorward on May 21, 2005, 6:48 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Chuck wrote:
> Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
> used?
To XHTML 1.0? Only if you have a pressing need to use mixed namespaces (such
as XHTML + MathML).
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
|
|
Posted by Lauri Raittila on May 21, 2005, 7:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Chuck wrote:
> Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
> used?
Yes, conversion from xhtml to html4 makes sence often, especially if
xhtml is not appendix C cnforming. (it is afaik easier to convert it to
html4 than conforming xhtml)
Converion from html4 to xhtml makes no sence for you now, if you need to
ask. It may in future, but it should be trivial.
> What possible, immediate, benefit would there be? I am at a loss to see
> what, pragmatic, difference it would make.
Not much, unless you serve XHTML using correct mime type, then you
propably will have some problems.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:
https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/buy-opera.html?AID=882173
|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on May 21, 2005, 10:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:23:18 GMT, "Chuck"
>Is there any logical reason why one should convert if css is already being
>used?
XHTML is just HTML 4.01 in XML - no other differences.
There are situations for authoring / content management where having
your (*)HTML as XML is useful.
For serving up content, it makes no difference. It's impractical to
serve XHTML _as_ XML and if you stick with Appendix C etc., then XHTML
works just as well with the client browsers as HTML does.
So really it's your call. No strong general reasons either way. If you
have a specific reason for your project, then follow that.
|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on May 24, 2005, 9:10 am
Please log in for more thread options
Andy Dingley wrote:
> XHTML is just HTML 4.01 in XML - no other differences.
It's worse than that. They are _almost_ the same, with no adequate
documentation of changes. The purported comparison at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs
mentions things that aren't changes (in 4.1; the odd term
"well-formedness" is an XML novelty, but the requirements on nesting are
not), and it omits an unknown number of syntactic changes made silently
when rewriting the DTDs in XML.
For example, the optional id and xmlns attributes have been added to the
<html> tag. The type of the name attribute in <map> was changed from
CDATA to NMTOKEN.
Yucca
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | HTML 4.01 strict / transitional vs. XHTML 1.0 | September 18, 2005, 3:10 pm |
| utf-8 and xhtml 1.0 strict | October 28, 2004, 7:26 am |
| Strict XHTML and div question | July 14, 2005, 7:07 pm |
| XHTML 1.0 Strict and the Apostrophe | February 15, 2008, 11:12 am |
| What to use intead of taget_new in XHTML/Strict | July 19, 2004, 7:41 am |
| image maps + xhtml strict | October 23, 2004, 9:16 pm |
| Valid XHTML strict messed up in IE Mac | December 20, 2004, 7:13 pm |
| XHTML 1.0 Strict validation problem | November 11, 2005, 10:30 am |
| ampersand in urls when using xhtml 1.0 strict | December 17, 2007, 8:30 am |
| Validation: XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict | July 23, 2004, 6:10 pm |
|
XML Sitemap