Sure, there are many Godaddy vouchers out there. Good opportunity to save mola on Godaddy now. I advise you to sign up for their emails so you can get their latest online specials. They typically send once a month..
I deliberately posted initials so no-one would know and there wouldn't be a libel action. Now you've blown it!!..
And therein lies the problem, Bushie. IE, the browser that most people use (or so I'm told), doesn't like xhtml. A page done in xhtml doesn't always want to run properly. The same with HTML strict.
I'd say it would depend on your target audience and your level of 'I-wanna-learn'. I'm with Aero for beginners. Get to know how a page is supposed to look and get familiar with the tags before you start getting technical with the coding. It's the workaround for IE that drives everyone nuts and that takes a bit of practice and knowledge. Just to keep the frustration level from becoming too great, start out with HTML and work your way up..
Fwiw, it's not the XHTML markup that IE has issues with, it's the prefered mime-type (application/xhtml+xml), which is why it's useful that XHTML 1.0 is permitted to be served using the traditional text/html mime-type..
I've not yet encountered any issues using XHTML 1.0 Strict markup (s/a text/html) in IE/Win...
IE loves XHML and renders it fine and I recommend going with XHTML but there is still NO ADVATAGE of doing so (other than for your career). Prove me wrong and name one good technically proven reason why XHTML is better than HTML - there are none!.
As for XML sites only IE renders them I think...
No when XHTML is used IE renders it as text/html. If the correct mimetype was passed e.g. application/xhtml+xml IE would try to download the page. Changing the content type in the html doesn't do anything so that won't cause anything to happen. Using XHTML if you know just shows that you are up to standards when it comes to a web site. For example you want to have a GoDaddy site built, one designer knows only HTML, the other knows XHTML who would you hire?..
Can you show me an example or explain as I dont quite understand? Your coming from a programming side rather than layout for design?..
Functionally, you are correct: there is no appreciable difference between HTML and XHTML. They both makes web pages, and they both have more or less the same tools available to do so. All major browsers support them equally, with the caveat that IE doesn't like pages served with goofy mime types (blasted mimes!)..
It really comes down to this: do you intend to make a career out of web design/programming? If so, you really ought to learn XHTML, as it's what people are going to start expecting. It's also a lot easier to learn the stricter requirements of XHTML and then step back to the looser HTML than it is to learn the looser HTML and step up to XHTML (if you don't believe me, cruise through these forums and see how many times the sentence "all attributes in XHTML must be quoted" appears)..
If you're just a hobbiest and let me state clearly that there is nothing wrong with this then HTML will do just fine..
In either case, I second the sentiment expressed earlier (though I can no longer find it, so it may have been in a different thread) that it is better to have valid HTML 4 than invalid XHTML 1. Whichever you choose, do it properly. Otherwise, you're going to spend a lot of time hunting down problems..
I personally consider the XHTML markup standards's take on well-formedness (i.e. full and proper nesting) to be preferable. I feel that the XHTML markup standard tightens up one or two of the loose bolts present in HTML 4.01..
Whilst it is only a small factor, I feel it's one that encourages a better comprehension of well-formedness than that which is set out in HTML 4.01..
(I am aware that you can formally close paragraphs in HTML 4.01, but as the HTML 4.01 standard neither encourages it or requires it, there is no incentive for beginners to take it on board.).
Of course, in (current) real terms, it's a moot point, though I would suspect that XHTML's idea of well-formedness makes it a more pedantic structural markup language which, I would imagine, improves it's portability and it's chances of interoperability..
(I don't know enough about other places where markup might be used to know for sure if that has any currency in today's interweb landscape.)..
My preference is for xhtml because I abhor big letters, the use of them is anathema to me...