 |
 |
Wendell Piez wrote: > > There are also other ways of skinning this cat. You can decide that, > XHTML being a "terminal format" not suitable for input to any process > other than certain specified target applications (a known set of > browsers), formal validation of XHTML doesn't matter as long as the > browser does "the right thing" with ul/ol inside p. (Most browsers do.) > While this might be controversial It is. It does not advance the web if we continue to rely on browsers doing more-or-less-the-right-thing with commonly-encountered situations. There *is* a point to getting XHTML better standardized; and that includes schemas, to my mind. Pragmatically, I believe we should accept the stupid limitations of XHTML 1.1 and program around them, while supporting the development of a better XHTML 2.0. In some ways, George Bina's solution is that we should generate 2.0 now, and then dumb it down to 1.1 for a while. -- Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk