On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 21:29 +1200, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
> XHTML 2 is a working draft [1]. I wouldn't recommend that you base any 
> classes on it at this stage, beyond perhaps mentioning it and some of 
> its key improvements, as a lot could change between now and CR, PR or 
> final recommendation [2].

I agree.  There's plenty of fun to be had talking about XHTML 1 or 1.1.

I wrote a set of course notes years ago with standard HTML 4.01.  Two
years ago, I went back and put some "/>" at the end of the empty tags
and had XHTML (a few other minor changes too, of course).

Standards-based markup is often touted as a way to ensure web developers
don't have to worry about flavour-of-the-month technologies.  I assure
you, it works for lazy instructors too.  :-)

All that's changed is that it's become easier to talk about CSS, because
it's actually reasonably well supported now.

-- 
Greg Baker, Lecturer
School of Computing Science
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6
E-mail: ggbaker@cs.sfu.ca