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

Re: Valid XML

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 14:49:40 +0100
Message-ID: <428F3C74.4000008@splintered.co.uk>
To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>

Karl Dubost wrote:

>> It's well established that the popular UA's handle XHTML badly, in  
>> some way or other.
> Again no. :)
> popular UAs handle badly "XHTML 1.0" and "XHTML 1.1" served with  
> _application/xhtml+xml_


> It's why I haven't recommended in its long thread to use XHTML 1.1,  and 
> I have insisted on "XHTML 1.0 (text/html)".

Actually, as demonstrated before (where IE gets confused when an empty 
script element is minimised - perfectly valid under XHTML 1.0), the 
dominant browser only understands *compatible* XHTML 1.0 (as per 
appendix C) sent as text/html. At which stage, I can understand why some 
people are wondering: "why bother? why not use HTML 4.01 instead?"

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 Saturday, 21 May 2005 13:49:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 July 2011 00:13:23 GMT