Enlighten me. :)

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/

Looks like tiny changes from 1.0 plus the inclusion of Ruby (which I know pretty much nothing about):

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes

For my purposes the only difference is that 1.1 has no name attribute when 1.0 strict does. That is why I will not be able to make affective use of 1.1 when using asp.net elements. I use xhtml on pages without forms, but when I bust out the forms I generally drop back to html 4.01 transitional. I hope asp.net 2 cleans up the output, it would make life easier. I could just do forms the old way, like in asp classic by calling the script from the action, but asp.net allows me to do the same type of stuff asp classic did with a lot less code, I do not want to do it the old way :'(.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=22;threadid=6587;start=0#msg59697 date=1084328417]
For my purposes the only difference is that 1.1 has no name attribute when 1.0 strict does. That is why I will not be able to make affective use of 1.1 when using asp.net elements. I use xhtml on pages without forms, but when I bust out the forms I generally drop back to html 4.01 transitional. I hope asp.net 2 cleans up the output, it would make life easier. I could just do forms the old way, like in asp classic by calling the script from the action, but asp.net allows me to do the same type of stuff asp classic did with a lot less code, I do not want to do it the old way :'(.
[/quote]

Bleh. Use XHTML 1.1 transitional! :P

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=22;threadid=6587;start=0#msg59809 date=1084385644]
Bleh. Use XHTML 1.1 transitional! :P
[/quote]

I still don't "grasp" XHTML 1.1 strict. If someone could explain it better than W3C, I'd be interested.

I don't believe there is an XHTML 1.1 strict dtd. Afaik, 1.1 is based on 1.0 strict, with even stricter guidelines. It's all or nothing.

I use 1.0 strict, I haven't gotten around to learning about 1.1 either.