W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > December 2002

Re: W3C Home page switched to full CSS layout

From: Robert Clary <bclary@netscape.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:31:32 -0500
Message-ID: <3DF0A6B4.1050103@netscape.com>
To: John Colby <John.colby@btinternet.com>
CC: public-evangelist@w3.org
John Colby wrote:
> 
> I'm really getting puzzled by al this insistence on HTML4.01. As I 
> understood it, HTML4.01 is the last of the line of HTML recommendations 
> by W3C, we're now onto XHTML 1.0 (an XML application) and XHTML 1.1. 
> XHTML2.0 proposals have been published. So why try to tie into a dying 
> legacy language that has absolutely no future?
> 
> Regards
> 
> John
> 
> And apologies to Jim - this should originally have gone to the list
> 

John,

Please let me provide my viewpoint on this issue.

The page http://www.w3.org/ is served as text/html and as such really is 
just HTML. It will invoke the HTML parser in Mozilla and Netscape 7.0 
and not the XML parser. You gain no real benefit from using XHTML 
content if the page is to be served as text/html.

In a reply to Jim, Dom wrote:

> But we need some wider experiment before that (as you know, some quite
> widespread browsers do not support application/xhtml+xml)

Take a look at

http://dev.bclary.com/w3/index.html   (served as text/html)
http://dev.bclary.com/w3/index.xhtml  (served as application/xhtml+xml)
http://dev.bclary.com/w3/index.xml    (text/xml)

in Mozilla, Netscape 7.0, Opera 7 beta 1 and Internet Explorer 6.

Mozilla, Netscape 7.0, Opera 7 beta 1 will display each version 
correctly.  Internet Explorer can not display the page if it is served 
as anything but text/html.

 From my point of view, XHTML served as text/html is useless. So, why 
use XHTML on this page ?

Bob




Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 08:32:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 July 2011 00:13:21 GMT