\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [March 12, 2009, 1:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/xhtml-compliance-makes-development-faster-not-slower/162652 "2009-03-12T13:28:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1
**Author:**  [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/xhtml-compliance-makes-development-faster-not-slower/162652/1 "2009-03-12T13:28:32Z")
[http://xkcd.org/554/](http://xkcd.org/554/)
Someone tell Randall he got part of panel 3 wrong, k? tx!
---
**Author:**  [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/xhtml-compliance-makes-development-faster-not-slower/162652/2 "2009-03-12T14:10:44Z")
[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001234.html](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001234.html)
Frankly, you’re wrong, and XKCD is right. XHTML has some pretty …
backwards ideas compared to the “standard” HTML that most developers
right.
Jason
---
**Author:**  [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/xhtml-compliance-makes-development-faster-not-slower/162652/3 "2009-03-12T15:53:32Z")
Jason R. wrote:
> [http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001234.html](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001234.html)
>
> Frankly, you’re wrong, and XKCD is right. XHTML has some pretty …
> backwards ideas compared to the “standard” HTML that most developers
> right.
Transitional XHTML??