Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 22:40:26 -0400 From: parv <parv_@yahoo.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@aa.net> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, f-doc <freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: (website) move towards xhtml Message-ID: <20010813224026.B60454@moo.holy.cow> In-Reply-To: <br66brke3n.6br@host29.207.55.120.aadsl.com>; from swear@aa.net on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:29:48AM -0700 References: <20010812200925.A49266@moo.holy.cow> <20010813104836.X50182@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010813075517.A16251@moo.holy.cow> <br66brke3n.6br@host29.207.55.120.aadsl.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
this was, on the fateful occasion around Aug 13 14:29 -0400, sent by Gary W. Swearingen > > parv <parv_@yahoo.com> writes: > ... > > advantages: > > - w3c's update of html 4.x; html 4 has been deprecated in favor of > > xhtml. (inferred from the 1st link below) > > Doesn't look like an advantage to me. Fairly irrelevant. well, having the time to convert before html standard becomes unsupported seems to be an advantage to me at least. > > - xhtml-strict dtd takes us towards xml; in the end will fit much more > > nicely w/ css than existing html (again w3c propaganda)... but who > > knows what else would have, or have not, had happened by then? > > XHTML, strict or not, *is* XML as I understand it. That was the main > advantage for my usage. It allows one to use XML-savy tools and > libraries on it. But since you've already got your source in SGML, you > don't gain much from that feature. It might help people grabbing your > *HTML. yes, that's my general idea too. -- so, do you like word games or scrabble? - parv To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010813224026.B60454>