On Monday 13 March 2006 06:50, Frank Ellermann wrote:
• isn't supported by my legacy browser. The wikipedia
folks apparently go for "use UTF-8 for everything excluding
" - worse from my POV.
Your POV is valid of course, but I do agree with the UTF-8 push. Yes, it
might not work with every old browser, but it's a lot more elegant way
forward, especially when dealing with multiple languages. It's also a fairly
simple task for a browser to add support for UTF-8, versus i.e. XHTML (more
on that below).
AFAIK for XHTML all values have to be quoted, and if that's
correct it should be cellspacing="3" or similar. At the
moment there are lots of validator nits, XHTML strict is a
tough beast. Transitional is much better, the W3C claim
that only strict is good for accessibility is propaganda :-(
XHTML in general is pointless. HTML 4.01 has no disadvantages versus XHTML
1.0, and in fact XHTML is not valid HTML, so some legacy browsers will
print /'s all over the place as they /should/ do if they are strict HTML
renderers. XHTML 1.0 sent as text/html is interpreted by browsers as
malformed HTML. XHTML 1.1 sent as text/html is invalid also, and XHTML 1.1
sent as required by the spec, as application/xml+xhtml or whatever it is,
doesn't work in most browsers period. The HTML-->XHTML migration isn't as
nice as the W3C would like you to believe. Good application XHTML support is
still years away.
Cheers,
--
Casey Allen Shobe | cshobe(_at_)seattleserver(_dot_)com | 206-381-2800
SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com