So what do you think? I redesigned the web site, as I'm sure you'll notice. Unless it's your first time here, of course. It took me about 15 minutes to do the design. I was kind of bored of the other one so I thought I'd go for the terminal-window look. I should put some of my old ANSI art here next.. ha.
I just launched a real simple web site, Free Horoscope Daily with my father. It contains free, daily horoscopes, and nothing else. I was sick of all the clutter that ends up on horoscope web sites, and wanted to make one that was simple and good. It may grow in the future, but right now I like it how it is.
Please, I'd love to hear your feedback. Drop me an email if you have something to suggest or that you'd like to see.
If someone were to write a worm that went around the Internet, eliminating the vulnerability of the computers it passes through, is that immoral? Is it illegal? Since the worm is doing no damage (unless you consider patching a hole to be damaging somehow), I wonder what the implications would be. What would people say if Microsoft released a patching-worm before someone released a damaging one?
It turns out I wasn't done last week when I switched the site over to XHTML 1.1. It turns out that according to the W3C, text/html is not an allowed type for XHTML 1.1. And the type application/xhtml+xml brings with it a number of concerns. The biggest concern is that Internet Explorer doesn't support this type.
I found this great guide which suggested giving Internet Explorer XHTML 1.0 Strict while browsers that support application/xhtml+xml can be server XHTML 1.1. I went ahead and did this. I had to do the following:
That's all I needed to do. There are other things that may need to be done, for example changes to DOM Scripting. I feel better knowing that I can support the cutting edge, while still supporting older browsers that are behind the times.
That's right, I've updated this site so it is now valid XHTML 1.1. It was previously XHTML 1.0 Strict. So what did I have to change?
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
That's it! Not too bad at all. I was also looking at what's coming in XHTML 2.0. I really like what I see. The downside is that XHTML 2.0 will not be backwards-compatible. The upside is, from what I can tell, it won't be very difficult to port an XHTML 1.x page to XHTML 2.0.
It looks like most web pages will only need to worry about a few things like the elimination of the <img> tag (this won't matter to those using CSS to add images), and the replacement of h1-h6 tags with a single <h> tag. However, it seems that pages with lots of JavaScript forms will need to have a major rework: HTML forms are replaced with XForms, JavaScript Events with XML Events. I guess we'll need to wait and see what the final specification has to say.