Re: Start with HTML or XHTML? (slightly OT)

I've been reading this thread with great interest because I am just now
starting to migrate fully into XHTML and CSS.  Currently, I have a very
rough and quick table-less layout for my weblog
(http://www.find-the-river.com/weblog).  I coded it strictly for my own
enjoyment and viewing in either IE6 for Win or IE5 for Mac.  After reading
most of the messages, I decided to view my site in NN4.  I was pleasantly
surprised to see that it DIDN'T look like doodie.  Other than the two side
flanking menus switching sides, the site actually degraded quite gracefully.
Of course, it doesn't validate yet in either CSS or XHTML but I'm happy with
it just the same.

Just my two cents.
Tam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew McFarland" <aamcf(at)aamcf.co.uk>
To: <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Start with HTML or XHTML? (slightly OT)


> At 13:13 13/03/02 -0500, cbirds(at)earthlink.net wrote:
> <snip/>
> >  I would think that customers who want
> >the most for their money would balk at your extra cost that is incurred
> >by your using "strict" whateveitis and that it also prevents other users
> >from seeing it.
> <snip/>
>
> Strict XHTML 1.0 will take less time to write and will be more widely
> viewable than, say, HTML 4.01 Transitional. One of the wonderful things
> about strict is that it degrades gracefully, most of the time. Apparently
> it also renders faster on older browsers, but I haven't personally
> investigated this.
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> http://aamcf.co.uk/
>
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA