J
John
Hi all,
I'm using RAD 7 to develope our web application (an intrAnet one), and
Struts 1.1, JDK 1.4.2, J2EE 1.4. (and quite a lot of JavaScript).
In Production there will be Solaris 10 as operating system.
I'm starting developing the view components with JSPs, and since our
website are quite obsolete and not W3C conform - they are not valid
- , I'd like to improve the new applications using XHTML together with
CSS, and also to ensure browser compatibility (Firefox, IE7, IE6,
eventually also IE5.x) together with Struts 1.1.
What I don't know is if I could ran some risks using Struts 1.1 with
XHTML and the "STRICT" Doctype-Declaration like that:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://
www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
..........
Does anyone of you guys are aware of some risks or so called "killer-
criteria" to NOT use this approach?
If there are possible, what kind of "Doctype Switch" you suggest me to
use, given the technologies I mentioned above?
Thank you very much for your answerz,
John
I'm using RAD 7 to develope our web application (an intrAnet one), and
Struts 1.1, JDK 1.4.2, J2EE 1.4. (and quite a lot of JavaScript).
In Production there will be Solaris 10 as operating system.
I'm starting developing the view components with JSPs, and since our
website are quite obsolete and not W3C conform - they are not valid
- , I'd like to improve the new applications using XHTML together with
CSS, and also to ensure browser compatibility (Firefox, IE7, IE6,
eventually also IE5.x) together with Struts 1.1.
What I don't know is if I could ran some risks using Struts 1.1 with
XHTML and the "STRICT" Doctype-Declaration like that:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://
www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
..........
Does anyone of you guys are aware of some risks or so called "killer-
criteria" to NOT use this approach?
If there are possible, what kind of "Doctype Switch" you suggest me to
use, given the technologies I mentioned above?
Thank you very much for your answerz,
John