«

On 2 Dec, 06:04, Robert Jones <robertjone...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Which should I focus on keeping track of?

All of them. "Keeping track of" is an important task. You shouldn't
_use_ either of them. This deliberate avoidance will remain
appropriate for at least the next couple of years (as we can't change
at least until IE 7 dies out)

> As far as I can tell each has features that I like but neither has all of them.

XHTML has features, but isn't usable (on the web).
HTML >4.01 is merely change for the sake of it.

What we really need isn't a new HTML standard, it's new and competent
implementations of the existing 10-year old standard. It ain't broke,
so let's first fix what is.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:07:43 +0000, Toby A Inkster writ:

> I've given my opinions on the developments here and here:
> http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/04/15/html5/

I had a glance and saw a typo right away:

"On the 10th of June 1215, the a group of English barons"

then scanned and found:

"When the W3C commenced work on this standard, it decided that it would
allow itself to significantly backwards compatibility in a way that
previous (X)HTML standards hadn’t."

then further found:

"To make matters worse, many user-agents also lacked support for the
parts of CSS that effect quoting."

I'll proof the whole thing for a fee.

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont <-·¯`·..·¯

freemont wrote:

> I had a glance and saw a typo right away

Yeah, I know. There's tonnes. I really need to fix it up at some point.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 9 days, 15:35.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/1...tunes-sharing/

this just what i think buti say to hell with what the W3C saysjust dowhat
youwant things willwork with outhalfof the extra tags in html that they make
some likedoctype evencoseproblems in some
cases

john smith wrote:
> just dowhat
> youwant things willwork with outhalfof the extra tags in html that they make
> some likedoctype evencoseproblems

Actually, using a Strict doctype tends to reduce problems, since it
triggers standards rendering mode in all the current browsers. This
means the results will be more consistent across browsers, not less.

I wouldn't bother with HTML5 or any version of XHTML. Stick with HTML
4.01 Strict if you want the best cross-browser compatibility.

--
Berg

"john smith" <> wrote in message
news:fjstch$g1l$...
> this just what i think buti say to hell with what the W3C saysjust dowhat
> youwant things willwork with outhalfof the extra tags in html that they
> make some likedoctype evencoseproblems in some
> cases


That's actually quite funny )).

I love the total lack of grammar, together with all the typos and bad
spacing... Yet despite all that we can discern (almost) the gist of what you
are saying. Your (almost) total lack of adherance to any semlance of
coherence makes for a quite copacetic critique on the bloat that occurs when
any 'standard' methodology is imposed.

Comedic genius. )

asdf wrote:
> "john smith" <> wrote in message
> news:fjstch$g1l$...
>> this just what i think
>
> I love the total lack of grammar, together with all the typos and bad
> spacing...

You might want to go back and search the archives for other posts from
"john smith", then act accordingly.

--
Berg