SpaceGirl said:
See what above? The only thing above is your statement that all
browsers fully support XHTML. Which is clearly not true.
The above page is 100% valid, properly served XHTML. It is treated
properly by Opera, Mozilla, etc. But IE doesn't even try to display
it. That is not 'fully supported' except in a very strange fantasy
land.
It works if you pet it
pet = outright lie?
Maybe "force" is a strong word. It "enourages" better formatting
How does it encourage this?
The only, marginal, advantage could be that if an author chooses to
switch to XHTML he might also be at the right psychological point to
choose to right semantically sound code. But the same can be said,
with more conviction, about a switch from Transitional to Strict.
Of course it does; but a compitent designer can end up with cleaner code.
A competent author can end up with equally clean code using HTML.
easier progression to whatever comes next?
As XHTML 2.0 is deliberately not going to be backwards compatible with
past versions there is going to be very little progression at all.
More a choice between a clean start (dump old code, dump old browsers)
or sticking with what we have now.
Why not just write all your sites in HTML 3... it works,
Show me one browser that supports said:
does everything HTML 4.01 does (although, you may have to jump
through hoops to get it to work).
No it doesn't. Most of the accessibility features are missing for
starters. And if you did mean 3.2 instead of 3.0 then it's also
missing the class and id attributes which limits what you can do with
stylesheets (especially considering that IE's CSS support is so poor
that it doesn't support most of the contextual selectors).
Steve