@mckinley@twtxt.net Regarding your move to XHTML 1.1:
[…] I can regenerate the entire page with an XSLT stylesheet. It will be like a static site generator, but worse.
Hahaha, exactly what I was thinking. :-D
Looking at the changes between HTML 3.2 and 4.0, apart from the XML properties, you could even have used HTML 3 instead of 4. Maybe even 2. I could not be bothered to look up what 3 added, though.
I chose HTML 5 for my stuff just because I can remember the doctype and meta tag to specify the encoding. The charset is of course also included in the HTTP headers, I just keep it in the HTML so that I easily cover the extremely rare use case of saving something to disk.
I was originally going to switch to HTML 4.01. I ended up choosing XHTML because it isn’t forgiving like regular HTML; tiny errors in markup will make browsers refuse to display anything. This will help me have a more correct website according to the specifications.
I really miss this property with regular HTML. This might be a stupid question, but how do I find out if my HTML is valid? I mean, other than running it through W3C’s tool. My browser surely doesn’t tell me …
@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I could probably get away with HTML 3.2. I think HTML 2 is much more limited, though, and I’d be forgoing CSS.
@mckinley@twtxt.net Ah, that even corrects wrong stuff automatically.
I just noticed that W3C validator now wants me to confirm that I’m a human… That’s a sign to install one or the other tool on my machine.