W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > October 2003

Re: XHTML 1.0 spec (was Re: Call for contributions: new and improved "Web site quality" articles

From: Bob Clary <bc@bclary.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:39:52 -0400
Message-ID: <3F7C70F8.6030507@bclary.com>
To: public-evangelist@w3.org
Brian Kelly wrote:


> Note that an advantage with text/html is that the page will display if the
> XHTML is invalid.  I think it would be difficult to sell the notion of
> application/xml if an invalid file is not displayed (I appreciate the need
> for compliance - this comment is about marketing XHTML.  One could argue
> that HTML 4.0 is a more fault tolerant format that XHTML (I wouldn't say
> that but others may).


I really must chime in and agree with Jim about this.

The point that he and I have been trying to make over some period of 
time is that the attitude that serving XHTML as text/html and allowing 
authors to get in the habit of authoring invalid XHTML all the while 
thinking it is ok will end up destroying the promise that is XHTML.

One of the great advantages to authoring in XML and XHTML (as 
application/xhtml+xml) is that the documents must be well formed at the 
very least. To take the position that the requirement of well formed 
documents is a disadvantage and that any hodgepodge of markup should be 
displayed is antithetical to the entire idea behind XML.

As Jim stated, I have not heard a good reason to use XHTML when it is 
served as text/html, especially when the content is not subject to a 
strict validation process.

The reason I brought up the news.com site today was to illustrate the 
Bad Things(tm) that are happening to XHTML because of lack of a 
commitment to what XHTML really is... XML. Why are we recommending XHTML 
over HTML when all we expecting of the author is that they continue to 
author HTML as they always have?


Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 14:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:18 UTC