Re: XHTML 2.0

At 15:38 08/10/02 -0400, Mike Taylor wrote:
>My point in my original XHTML 2.0 post
>was that these recent updates have made it more frustrating and confusing
>for those hand-coders out there who are torn between wanting to stay abreast
>of the standards and validation but also want to ensure their work can be
>displayed to the largest possible audience.

You can't stay at the bleeding edge of technology and remain backwards 
compatible.

>   Without some creative browser
>sniffing and alternate pages for several browser types, in addition to some
>added JavaScript DOM-related snippets, you can't easily make XHTML appear
>consistent across all the popular browsers.

Why would you want to? You should make user the information in the page 
displays correctly in a range of browsers, but that doesn't mean 
_identically_. (And if it does mean identically to you, the stop using 
HTML. That isn't what it is for.)

>And that's my point!  That's it!  I don't want to get into a "How great our
>lives will be once XML is ubiquitous" war.  If you love XML, great.  XHTML,
>for now, is a royal freakin' pain.

Then don't use it. You don't have to. The publication of the XHTML 1.0 
standard did not invalidate or retract the HTML 4.01 standard.

Andrew

--
http://aamcf.co.uk/

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