![abbreviated msew abbreviated msew](https://0.academia-photos.com/attachment_thumbnails/53065831/mini_magick20190122-21964-1fpgk8f.png)
You can also simply hand it to a secretary with a comment of "Don't touch the angle brackets", and they can easily update the text on a page and have it work. This means that you can hand the page to some junior HTMLer and know that the page will still have a chance of validating and looking right when you get it back.
#ABBREVIATED MSEW CODE#
Instead, just wrap the whole thing in a DIV tag, and use the positioning code to place it appropriately. Table driven sites are an endless mess of tags inside your HTML code making it quite unreadable. Having done quite a bit of CSS-P, it's actually easier to do once you bend your mind to it. If your Web Authoring really is about content, not Flash animations demo, then XHTML Basic is all you really need.
![abbreviated msew abbreviated msew](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1568494618305635-gr7.jpg)
#ABBREVIATED MSEW PLUS#
My own appreciation of XHTML Basic, from an HTML comparision point of view, is that it is about half-way between HTML 2.0 and 3.2: basic text and images, plus forms and tables, with XML rigor as a bonus. All we need to find from W3C is there: the standards.Īlso, while the obvious intention of XHTML Basic is to reconcile WML and HTML into a unified common base, note that Web Content created using this barebone standard with linked CSS sheets (as opposed to embeded style rules within the text) also has another strong advantage: it obsoletes the very concept of forcing people to "upgrade" to whatever latest version of a specific browser, which increases accessibility of the content and makes it possible to use "deprecated" browsers without loosing anything significant. Is the absence of frames and nested tables an obstacle to the content's diffusion? Well, admit it, it is not. Oh, there are a few icons and logos, too. Sure, there are colors and neat formatting tricks, but most of that is done using CSS. Already since the first XHTML draft was released almost a year ago, they have simplified their presentation, but the important stuff is still there: the documentation about WEB Publishing standards. Honnestly, look at W3C's own homepage and see for yourself what clean HTML means. Old Netscape died because it didn't move with the times fast enough. The browser makers will cater to that desire or they will perish. The main aspect is that people will always want the web to work better, and standards do just that. Sure, aspects of their monopoly put pressure on Netscape to make stupid mistakes, and also probably cut down on their overall workforce, slowing them down. Arguably, standards, in part, made IE come out on top in the browser wars. Sure, someone like MS that has a "Microsoft Universe" to work with will implement silly browser specific stuff, but they will still support standards. Some are just a pain to code into a browser (like CSS2's drop shadow effect that should be able to affect any text it is applied to). No browser vendor in their right mind is going to implement something that is subject to change.Īlso, some of the standards are a bit "ambitious", and are therefore hard to implement without breaking backwards compatibility. While the base XML standard was solid for a while, other standards that were needed to make it web viable, such as XSLT were not (although I think it just became "stable" recently). Most of the "standards" people talk about being unsupported are, in fact, unfinished. Well, the W3 recommended the CSS1 spec, and IE, Netscape6, Mozilla, and Opera follow it religiously.