[whatwg] WA 1.0 and WF 2
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Wed Oct 26 05:08:58 PDT 2005
ROBO Design wrote:
> I took a closer look into the source code of both of the specifications.
> Interestingly, you don't use XHTML 1.0 strict, you stick to valid HTML
> 4.01 Strict (no </html> !).
There's no reason to use XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01; in fact there are
many reasons not to. For starters, IE doesn't support XHTML and it
would be rather ironic to write a spec designed for backwards
compatibility in IE, using a language it doesn't even support.
See this, and search google, for more information about XHTML vs HTML.
> Last, but not least, please let us know about the advantages of using
> lang="en-GB-hixie". I'm really curious about the reason for doing so.
More information about the whatwg