You are reading a single comment by @pascalo and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@pascalo
Sorry, but XHTML 2 is a working draft. Like html 5. It departs from the current HTML standard and utilizes XFORMS, XLINK etc.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/introduction.html
It's great that you take pride in your work etc ... and I mostly agree with what you're saying in terms of pride in work and so on. Just that often reality catches up, and somehow people inject invalid code.
I'd love to always have a work environment where I'm not the only person caring about standards, security, automatic testing etc.
Cassandra syndrome I guess.
Maybe it's because I am contracting that I have become more and more sarcastic about things. I had projects where I had deployment tools set up to check every single page and validate it.
Six months later I would come back, to fix something with that very project, and someone had commented out the part that validated and in turn messed up all templates with inline javascript that was shite in the first place and wouldn't pass validation in the second.
I think to write a site in semantically correct and high standard HTML4 and at a later stage change the doctype to HTML5, revalidate, change minor issues is a realistic scenario for a website.
It also would be future proof. Why mentioning future proof if XHTML 1.0 is where you leave it? That is just current-state proof.
It makes sense however, that you advocate XHTML 1.0 because you use XML tools.
BTW: Is it possible to generate the <!doctype html> thingy with MSXML and the xsl:output directive? With xslt_proc it's just not possible.
In regards to different rendering modes, HTML 4 strict with the correct doctype will produce equally good results IMO. These things, as you mentioned, where mapped out a while ago:
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/
Note that the HTML5 doctype is designed by what it does already, which is triggering standards mode regardless to whether it was known at the time the browser was conceived or not.
Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain in the arse, and it's good to talk with people that know what they're on about, but we might have to agree to disagree in certain points.