The Web Standards Project hinted today that they'll be imminently focusing on XHTML:
With all the attention being given to what should be an old issue, it's becoming clear that we require better information in order to make good choices when it comes to the languages we use to author our documents. So backroom discussion this week at WaSP has led us to the decision that we should dig more deeply into XHTML: Why it is, what it's best used for, how to use it properly, what the differences between versions are, and what XHTML 2.0 will bring (or deny) us.
We can understand why the WaSP thinks that using XHTML properly should be an old issue, but can't imagine why anyone would think that it really is. The meager number of valid XHTML sites, we think, is an obvious indication of a lack of community understanding. Many of us are using XHTML incorrectly. Almost all of us are serving it incorrectly.
An important point made by the WaSP -- a point we've tried to make here -- is that conforming to Web standards doesn't mean conforming exclusively to XHTML:
Choosing to author to standards really means understanding as much of a given specification as possible, using it intelligently, and validating documents to test for conformance. Whether you're using XHTML 1.1 or HTML 3.2 to do this is really irrelevant.
The WaSP should begin serving its own XHTML documents with the proper MIME type, or prove that it believes one standard is as good as another and revert to valid HTML 4.01.
Bonus CSS Links
In Making the Absolute, Relative Douglas Bowman explains a notoriously misunderstood CSS technique: absolute positioning.
Listamatic is a fine collection of CSS tabs.