<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Strict, or Loose with your DTD Standards?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/</link>
	<description>BlogMaster Techniques and Social Media Matters</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:23:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: WebFadds.com &#187; WebFadds.com - Professional Blog and CMS website development services</title>
		<link>http://www.webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/#comment-1179</link>
		<dc:creator>WebFadds.com &#187; WebFadds.com - Professional Blog and CMS website development services</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/#comment-1179</guid>
		<description>[...] Strict, or Loose with your DTD Standards? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Strict, or Loose with your DTD Standards? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Frangos</title>
		<link>http://www.webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/#comment-867</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Frangos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/#comment-867</guid>
		<description>Hi - I agree... we are in a loooong transition period, when you consider that XHTML has been around for about eight years now.  Maybe its the application of the "concept" of XHTML and XML the holds people back.  I mean, straight HTML tags are easier to grasp -- h1 for Heading size 1, b for Bold, etc. -- there's a more direct visual result from those tags. Even the advantages of CSS tables (less code, separation of content and styling) are easier to see than what the "X" in XHTML does.  Maybe we, as teachers, have to do a better job of making very clear the advantage of XHTML, in a visual and meaningful way.  You've got me thinking about it (I teach at the college level)... thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi - I agree&#8230; we are in a loooong transition period, when you consider that XHTML has been around for about eight years now.  Maybe its the application of the &#8220;concept&#8221; of XHTML and XML the holds people back.  I mean, straight HTML tags are easier to grasp &#8212; h1 for Heading size 1, b for Bold, etc. &#8212; there&#8217;s a more direct visual result from those tags. Even the advantages of CSS tables (less code, separation of content and styling) are easier to see than what the &#8220;X&#8221; in XHTML does.  Maybe we, as teachers, have to do a better job of making very clear the advantage of XHTML, in a visual and meaningful way.  You&#8217;ve got me thinking about it (I teach at the college level)&#8230; thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lenzjo</title>
		<link>http://www.webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/#comment-866</link>
		<dc:creator>lenzjo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:42:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/#comment-866</guid>
		<description>I actively teach and promote strict XHTML, but it's like swimming upstream at times. Take for example Dreamweaver. It's tutorial teach page layout using a table!!! Or when I designed my blog, I had to go to transitional because of plugins coded using table layouts.

XML, yes I agree it is the future - heck it's here now. It's relatively easy to learn, but requires experience to write properly without getting sloppy coding. This is from experience in trying to teach it. I think XHTML will be around for a while yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actively teach and promote strict XHTML, but it&#8217;s like swimming upstream at times. Take for example Dreamweaver. It&#8217;s tutorial teach page layout using a table!!! Or when I designed my blog, I had to go to transitional because of plugins coded using table layouts.</p>
<p>XML, yes I agree it is the future - heck it&#8217;s here now. It&#8217;s relatively easy to learn, but requires experience to write properly without getting sloppy coding. This is from experience in trying to teach it. I think XHTML will be around for a while yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bloggingzoom.com</title>
		<link>http://www.webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/#comment-862</link>
		<dc:creator>bloggingzoom.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webhelpermagazine.com/2007/11/strict-or-loose-with-your-dtd-standards/#comment-862</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Strict, or Loose with your DTD Standards?...&lt;/strong&gt;

Microsoft and PayPal are loose about it. Yahoo is strict. Amazon doesn’t do it at all. What am I talking about?  ’m talking about how these sites use and conform to web standards (namely, the latest doc type declarations — DTD — as specified by...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Strict, or Loose with your DTD Standards?&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Microsoft and PayPal are loose about it. Yahoo is strict. Amazon doesn’t do it at all. What am I talking about?  ’m talking about how these sites use and conform to web standards (namely, the latest doc type declarations — DTD — as specified by&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
