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

Re: W3C Home page switched to full CSS layout

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:50:12 -0000
Message-ID: <02c701c29d4f$ef6becc0$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>

"Daniel" <tdaniel@adetti.net>

> >, don't mistake "rendering any old crap" with "supporting XHTML"
>
> Still, if browsers are rendering the XHTML properly, even if only
because
> there accustomed to "rendering any old crap", then is the W3C's usage
of
> XHTML causing any *problems*?

Yes, because there are other browsers, without such forgiving HTML
parsers around, since the page has removed the XML declaration, it now
works okay in the one I was having specific trouble with before (Pocket
IE), but there are still others, I only really track javascript capable
UA's but I know of over 20 of those, and I can't begin to do QA testing
against them all, so the only thing we can do is trust their HTTP Accept
headers, and so not send them XHTML if they don't say they can deal with
it.

There's also of course the W3's own NOTE's which say that XHTML 1.0
documents _SHOULD_ be being sent as application/xhtml+xml - if we're to
take SHOULD's seriously, we have to see the W3 taking them seriously.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ says things like "In general,
[the text/html] media type is NOT suitable for XHTML." and in the table
clearly shows that for XHTML 1.0 following the HTML compatibility
guidelines the mime-type "application/xhtml+xml" SHOULD be used.

Okay there may be reasons to ignore a SHOULD, after all that's why it's
not a MUST (and it's a NOTE anyway, not a Recommendation), I just don't
know what they are, and aren't hearing any come up.

Jim.
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 12:49:12 GMT

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