W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?)

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 07:42:25 +0100
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050623064225.GA30716@us-lot.org>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:01:49AM +0100, Gez Lemon wrote:
 
> On 22/06/05, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk> wrote:
> > What good reason is there for serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html? What
> > advantages does it give you over Appendix C conformant XHTML 1.0
> > served as text/html?
> 
> There is only one reason to conform to Appendix C. Appendix C is
> informative - a work-around while browsers catch up. But one browser
> didn't catch up.

Internet Explorer
Lynx
Links
W3M
GoogleBot

Then we have Konqueror which seems to run documents served as
application/xhtml+xml through a tag soup slurper (I'd guess Safari
does the same), and Opera which is confident enough in its XML engine
that, I am told, it makes its requests with an accept header including
a lowerer quality value for XHTML.

Its going to be a long time before browsers really catchup.

However, that doesn't answer my question. Why XHTML 1.1 (as text/html)
and NOT 1.0 + Appendix C?

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 06:42:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC