>Don, Lotta, thanks for the replies + links!
Glad you liked it.
> >xhtml is the next step forward, many believe in separating content from form
> >and well formed xhtml documents can be viewed on browsers/platforms other
> >than pc based
Just to clarify, it wasn't I that wrote the above. I just posted a the link
to a site explaining why mixing HTML and XHTML syntax isn't a good idea.
> Xhtml uses the same tags as the traditional html which can also separate the
>content and the style. Are you suggesting that using html+css is "against
>the rules", documents should be made either using plain html or xhtml+css?
Not I. Nobody else either I think.
I know way too little about the theory behind this all to have a grounded
opinion really. I guess I listen to both sides and try to figure out what
it's all about.
Fact remains that as it is today XHTML is served as HTML and treated as
HTML by most browsers, not as XML. There are not so few guys out there that
don't think XML as a browser language for the Web will ever happen, Yukka
Korpela being one of the more verbal among them. <G>
Seems to me that one of the most valid arguments for XHTML is that because
it syntactically is XML it's possible to make other XML applications
interact with it. Now I know absolutely zilch about storing data in XML and
that sort of thing so I better be quiet before I really put my foot in it.
Personally I like well written and structured markup. May it be HTML or XHTML.