W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Use cases

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:26:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4D247F90.2070003@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-html-xml@w3.org, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
On 01/05/2011 08:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 13:15:20 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, there is clear value in degrading gracefully by serving the
>> same content as text/html to clients that don't support
>> application/xhtml+xml, even if such clients don't get the benefit of
>> the full functionality.
> But soon all browsers will support XHTML.

Define "soon".  Define "all".  Heck, define "browser" as the use cases I 
proposed[1] deal with feed readers.  Many of which attack HTML with 
regular expressions.  Including, embarrassingly enough, one of the very 
libraries that Planet Venus depends on[2].

> Internet Explorer not supporting XHTML was a problem for people wishing
> to use XHTML. But that is being solved. What other problem is there? (I
> would say, that XHTML is too hard, but that is not being debated.)

I don't recommend to people that they serve XHTML unless they have a 
compelling reason to do so; but for those that do, I recommend 
constructing the XHTML in such a way that it can be parsed correctly as 
HTML unless there is a compelling reason not to.

I've given my reason in the form of a use case.  One that I will point 
out is not atypical or hypothetical.  Can either you or Henri give any 
rationale for your pushing back on this?

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Jan/0025.html
[2] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2010/12/30/Dealing-with-HTML-in-Feeds
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2011 14:41:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:27 UTC