Re: OT: Defending HTML4 (was: Re: Chelume - My Conlang website up.)

Some people talked, so I replied:



> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Axiem wrote:
> > The main differences between HTML4 (contemporary standard; I'm not
dealing
> > with all the X-stuff for now)
>
> Uhm, HTML4 is already deprecated.  XHTML1.0 is the official standard, and
> 1.1 is on the way.
Oh. Well then. I haven't been fully keeping up.

>
> However, XHTML 1.0 is identical to HTML4 in terms of what tags it
> contains, etc.  It only differs in the syntax rules, and then only
> enough to make it compliant with XML: tag names have to be lowercase,
empty
> tags have to be marked explicitly, all attributes have to have values, and
> those values have to be quoted.
Ah, okay. So basically, everything I've noted about HTML4 is XHTML1,
basically. I thought the all-lowercase and the marking empty tags was part
of HTML4?

Ah well. I suppose I ought to start using the XHTML page for my standard,
then.

>
> My only beef with XHTML is the way Boolean attributes were treated;
> e.g. <input type="checkbox" checked="checked" />
> instead of checked="true" or checked="yes" or checked="on" or something
> like that.
Agreed. It would be nice if "checked", "true", "yes", and/or "on" all
worked. That is, allow for synonyms.

Ah well.

I stand (slightly) corrected.

-Keith