W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: Serving XHTML as XML

From: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:47:54 +0100
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c519e8$f2aba750$440bc650@tversdatg7y7vv>

Hi all,

Let me start by once again reminding the list that Gez and
http://juicystudio.com also serves application/xhtml+xml to browsers
understanding it.

We only disagree about what to serve to the rest, IE, Lynx, old
browsers, etc. Or rather: I accept both solutions and said so in my last

I'm serving XHTML 1.0 strict and text/html since I find it very easy
just to remove the XML declaration from the XHTML 1.1 version served as
application/xhtml+xml, degrade the DTD, etc.
That's what I have been serving to all browsers until this Christmas
without any problems, and what W3C is still doing at its own website,
and what the XHTML 1.0 spec opens up for.
I believe that is how most of us have been moving forward step by step
as a natural XHTML learning process. We have been using a little more of
"XHTML" every day, one by one we solved the problems and our pages
validated after a while, and we moved forward and are now serving our
XHTML as XML to the browsers understanding it.

I'm well aware of the fact that some outspoken web developers feel it is
more correct to use what I call the "cold turkey" approach: maintain
both html pages and xhtml pages. Don't serve anything than html to a
browser until the day it understands xhtml with the proper xml
mime-type. That is not how the real world works for most of us. That is
only the approach of a tiny fraction of the elite.

But if it works for you do it. In my last mail I even called that
practice for nice. It is not fair when you say: "why do you want to
persecute people".

Best regards,
Jesper Tverskov

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] På
vegne af Gez Lemon
Sendt: 23. februar 2005 20:40
Til: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Emne: Re: Serving XHTML as XML

Hi Jesper,

> If we are to believe W3C, it is not wrong to say that XHTML has
> "replaced" HTML or even that HTML is "deprecated", when the
> words are used as every day language.

To keep this in context, we need to remember the main goal of the W3C:
"leading the web to its full potential". XHTML, in particular XHTML 2.0,
undoubtedly the way forward if the semantic web is ever to come to
With this in mind, the wording chosen is bound to champion their vision,
doesn't invalidate other specifications. Support for XHTML is inadequate
try and force developers to use it at this moment in time.

Ignoring the capabilities of all other user-agents (and I'm sure you're
aware, very few of them support application/xhtml+xml), all the time
that IE
is the most popular browser, there is absolutely no point serving it
as text/html. What have you gained? You've written your documents to
to the HTML Compatibility Guidelines
[http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines], regardless of the
capabilities of
the browser, which I assume means you don't consider the world to be
for XHTML yet. With that in mind, why do you want to persecute people
have taken the time to write valid HTML documents, which has far better
support in all user agents than XHTML? From what I can determine, you
use any XML features whatsoever, so I'm slightly confused as to why you
think that relying on a user-agent's error handling capabilities to
broken markup is better than serving it what it understands.

I would love XHTML to be supported properly by the majority of
but that clearly isn't the case, and unlikely to be the case for a long
yet. HTML is stable, and very well supported. From an accessibility
point of
view, it makes far more sense to deliver HTML as text/html than to try
force developers to deliver XHTML as text/html to browsers that don't
support it.

Best regards,

Supplement your vitamins
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 20:47:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:31 UTC