The good news is that my server is now back online, and I hope to deal with the backlog of questions in the next few days. Apologies if you have been waiting for an answer.

One reason I’ve been so quiet is because of the pressure of writing The Essential Guide to Dreamweaver CS3 with CSS, Ajax, and PHP. It’s the longest book I’ve written (730 pages, not including Introduction and Index), and I needed to get it out as soon as possible after the release of Dreamweaver CS3. The book was finally shipped to the printers at the end of June, so it should be available at online booksellers and in bookshops on or around 23 July. I finished the book in record time—seven months from starting the first chapter to finally packing it off to the printers. In spite of the rapid turnaround, it’s been fully tested in the final version of Dreamweaver CS3. I’m also delighted that Tom Muck, the highly respected developer of Dreamweaver extensions and author of several books, agreed to be my technical editor. Between us, I believe we have created a great book. Please go out and buy it by the cartload.

Another reason for not blogging much is the fact that, when testing Dreamweaver CS3, I have been under a Non-Disclosure Agreement. It’s hard to blog when the things you really want to write about have to be kept under wraps until the software is released.

Journalists need to be able to report what’s happening in the world without constantly being in fear for their lives. Alan lived in Gaza. Other correspondents based in Jerusalem used to visit on a regular basis. Now they rarely go. It’s too dangerous. And the lack of information about what’s going on in one of the most volatile places on earth makes the rest of the world more dangerous, too.

For the latest information about Alan, visit BBC Online.

So the arguments that break out in online forums from time to time about whether to use XHTML always tend to go over the same ground again and again: XHTML 1.0 isn’t really XHTML because it’s normally delivered using the wrong MIME type (text/html instead of application/xhtml+xml), and anyway everything’s going to change several years down the line when XHTML becomes the standard. My viewpoint has always been this:

• XHTML 1.0 is an official standard
• It’s fully supported by modern browsers (even Netscape 4 has no problems with it)
• Using XHTML 1.0 properly (in other words, making sure that it validates) teaches you the stricter standards that will be necessary when XHTML 2.0 eventually comes along (if it ever does)
• Well-formed XHTML makes it easier to work with CSS and dynamic code, such as PHP

Of course, you could use the same arguments about valid HTML 4.01. What matters most of all is that your code follows the rules and doesn’t rely on the forgiving nature of current browsers to cover up your mistakes.

This subject came up again a few days ago in the Dreamweaver forum. The discussion didn’t produce any real enlightenment, but it set me thinking. One of the arguments used in the past against adopting XHTML 1.0 is that “it doesn’t futureproof your site” because you’ll have to do everything again when XHTML 2.0 comes along. Then it struck me: that argument is completely wrong.

XHTML 1.0 is HTML 4.01 reformulated as XML. Since XML is designed to be machine-readable, it is futureproof. Pages designed with XHTML 1.0 may not be displayed by future browsers in the same way as XHTML 2.0, but the DOCTYPE will tell the XML parser how to read it. The same isn’t be true of HTML pages, even if they validate according to the 4.01 recommendation, because an XML parser will choke on empty elements, such as img tags.