Valid HTML Code?

[profpete]

You do, yes, so feel free to create your own XHTML 1.0 Strict valid style

[{o}]

I will

[APTX]

XHTML1.1 Strict anyone?

[link92]

XHTML1.1 Strict anyone?

No such thing, only XHTML 1.1... Whatever the new subBlue style is, I'll be making my own XHTML 1.1 Style...

[Graham]

Have fun - you can't strictly have 1.1 valid code unless it is served up with the correct MIME type, and not all browsers support that MIME type

[link92]

I know... I'm going to use my PHP Doctype/Mime type switcher (http://blog.geoffers.uni.cc/archives/20 ... html-html/" target="_blank)...

[Grrrrump]

I can see why you might have said someone was missing the point, but it seems to me things are not exactly as you've described them at Geoffers’.

First, the only bit of XHTML 1.0 that IE is known to choke on is the XML declaration; IE expects a DTD on the first line (if it expects anything at all), not an XML declaration. Leave the XML declaration out of a valid XHTML 1.0 document and it's rare (if ever) that IE resorts to quirks mode. After all, the steps outlined by the W3C to make XHTML 1.0 documents backward compatible with HTML clients were designed to prevent browsers (IE included) from mistaking XHTML as "very messy HTML."

Second, the purpose of XHTML 1.1 isn't to take HTML to the next step but to leave it behind altogether. An XHTML 1.1 document that can be transformed into an HTML document merely by changing /> to > is for all practical purposes an XHTML 1.0 document.

Given that the W3C provided for delivery of XHTML 1.0 documents as text/html, and given that IE can render XHTML 1.0 documents standards-compliant with almost zero "tweaking," the only real advantage of making an XHTML 1.1 template for phpBB is to deliver it as XML in a true sense - such as incorporating SVG and fun stuff like that. If there is no intent to deliver XML-dependent content, then converting XHTML 1.1 documents to HTML 4.01 documents on the fly for the world's most popular browser is, it seems to me, a fair amount of busywork. In that case, XHTML 1.0 Strict makes a good deal more sense, as I see it.

[MartinTruckenbrodt]

Hello,
what's the matter with CSS?

Will there be similar sytle settings in the ACP?
Will the css file now be activated by default?

IMO it would be great if there will not be any font and color style stuff in the ACP. IMO the styles should use only the css file.

Bye Martin

[subBlue]

the source code of this page is XHTML 1.0 Transitional....

(looking at the first line of it)

Yeah, but the new style?

The new style is XHTML 1.0 Strict.

[link92]

Wow... Bumping a thread almost a whole year old...