not valid XHTML

[volvoguy]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:47:52 +0100, Emil Oppeln-Bronikowski
<emil.oppeln.bronikowski at gmail.com> wrote:

> > it's not vaid XHTML :
> 
>  Don't you think that it's HARD (next to impossible?) to get
> everything valid, when we're speaking about Wiki? You'd have to expect
> that everyone in Doc team are up-to-date with WC3 specs.

Along this line of thought... Should people who ARE 100% up-to-date on
W3C specs use the HTML mode when editing instead of "structured" or
"restructured"? (I still haven't figured out which one we're
*supposed* to be using)

Personally, I'm more comfortable writing in (X)HTML than trying to
search all over for the correct way to mark something up with a
particular wiki format. In my case this is further complicated by the
fact that I actively participate in several wikis running different
software (of which MediaWiki is my fav!).

Any thoughts? If not, has a "formatting guidelines" document been
written yet? Something that explains which editing option (plain text,
structured, html) and general formatting rules (only use second or
third level headings on pages, etc)?

-- 
Aaron

Ubuntu SVG Artwork - www.volvoguy.net/ubuntu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere. ~ G.K. Chesterton