W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > May 2005

Re: XHTML 1.0 versus HTML 4.01

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 02:55:33 +0100
Message-ID: <427EC315.2010908@splintered.co.uk>
To: public-evangelist@w3.org

Andrew Cunningham wrote:

 > Of course IE6 doesn't understand application/xhtml+xml. I could be
 > wrong, but i believe that the recommendation to use the
 > application/xhtml+xml mimetype probably came out after IE6 was under
 > development. So not suprising that IE6 doesn't support it.

However, two IE service packs later, and the browser still doesn't know 
what to do when it is served application/xhtml+xml. Certainly, rewriting 
its core engine would be too big a job, but at least it could have 
reverted to treating it like tag soup HTML at the very least...but 
that's academic.

 > w.r.t. IE7, most people I know do not use WinXP-sp2, so most people i
 > know will not be able to use IE&

There will be a slow but steady phase of users forced to upgrade to XP 
or Longhorn, as fewer and fewer applications support older versions of 
Windows. I recently had to switch to XP because most of my video editing 
packages were written for XP only.
Add to that OEM contracts that put XP-SP2 on the majority of newly built 
mainstream PCs, and the pressure on corporates to keep upgrading to stay 
in line with MS' licensing regime, and you have a situation in which pre 
SP2 XP and 2000 are sure to fade away in the coming years.

Let's wait and see...

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 01:55:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:19 UTC