Interesting Read on XHTML

Sure many of you have seen it already, but . . .

http://www.kurafire.net/articles/case-for-xhtml

Thoughts?

Phil Evans <newsgroups (AT) philHADDOCKevans (DOT) removethefish.com> wrote:

Sure many of you have seen it already, but . . .

http://www.kurafire.net/articles/case-for-xhtml

Thoughts?

1) Off-topic here (crossposted and f-up set)
2) The quality of that article is so low that it's not worthy of a
response
3) Search ciwah for proper arguments against xhtml

--
Spartanicus

Op Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:32:20 +0100, schreef Phil Evans
<newsgroups (AT) philHADDOCKevans (DOT) removethefish.com>:

Sure many of you have seen it already, but . . .

http://www.kurafire.net/articles/case-for-xhtml

Thoughts?

XML parsing failed: not well-formed (Line: 1, Character: 163)

--
Barbara

PretLetters <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/>
Webontwerp <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Op Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:32:20 +0100, schreef Phil Evans
newsgroups (AT) philHADDOCKevans (DO...ovethefish.com>:

Sure many of you have seen it already, but . . .

http://www.kurafire.net/articles/case-for-xhtml

Thoughts?

XML parsing failed: not well-formed (Line: 1, Character: 163)

Given that there aren't 163 characters on the first line of the
document, I'm surprised by that.

Can you point out the parser you used? Is that a problem with the DTD?

P

"Phil Evans" <newsgroups (AT) philHADDOCKevans (DOT) removethefish.com> wrote
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Sure many of you have seen it already, but . . .

http://www.kurafire.net/articles/case-for-xhtml

Thoughts?

Here's one:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Stan Brown wrote:

"Phil Evans" <newsgroups (AT) philHADDOCKevans (DOT) removethefish.com> wrote
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Sure many of you have seen it already, but . . .

http://www.kurafire.net/articles/case-for-xhtml

Thoughts?

Here's one:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

Crossposting wasn't the problem - being a fool and not paying proper
attention to where I *was* posting was

Spartanicus started, and I've continued, sending followups to CIWAH.
Apologies to CIWASians for the oversight . . .

P