mbstevens said:
I doubt you'll find anyone here that thinks that FrontPage is worth
fooling around with.
And not too many who think w3schools is worth fooling around with:
"XHTML is a W3C Recommendation"
Its actually several, not to mention working drafts and so on.
"XHTML is compatible with HTML 4.01."
What is this supposed to mean?
"All new browsers have support for XHTML."
Define "new". My 12 month old copy of W3M doesn't, nor does the latest
version of Internet Explorer.
"W3C defines XHTML as the latest version of HTML"
Really? Where? I've only seen it described as a replacement for HTML.
"HTML was designed to display data"
No it wasn't. It wasn't even designed to describe the way data should be
displayed.
"XHTML pages can be read by all XML enabled devices"
So my theoretical device which parses a RDF weather feed and changes the
colour of a glowing ball thingy can read XHTML? Wow!
"XHTML gives you the opportunity to write 'well-formed' documents now,
that work in all browsers and that are backward browser compatible"
http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/gr.png - yes "work". Right. That would mean
thinking that in HTML <img .../> means the same as <img ...> wouldn't it?
"!!!"
Three exclamation marks, surely the sign of a deranged mind.
"The Most Important Differences:
* XHTML elements must be properly nested"
This is different from HTML how?
"* All XHTML elements must be closed"
This is different from HTML how? The difference is they must be *explicitly*
closed, rather then implicitly by being defined as EMPTY.
"In HTML some elements can be improperly nested within each other like
this:
<b><i>This text is bold and italic</b></i>"
No they can't!
.... and so on.