W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Is this legal XHTML 1.1?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:59:11 -0500
Message-Id: <200212140059.TAA00776@nerd-xing.mit.edu>
To: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@jelks.nu>
cc: www-html@w3.org

> You're saying, "Because of old/broken UAs, don't use XHTML on the web as
> text/html."

No, _you_ are saying, "Because of old/broken UAs, I can't send XHTML as
text/xml or application/xhtml+xml."  Ian is saying, "Because it's bad for the
future of the web, don't send XHTML as text/html; if you want to use XHTML,
send it as text/xml or application/xhtml+xml or use those vaunted XML tools
everyone carps about to transform it to something resembling HTML with the same
content."

To which you then are responding, "I would rather just author HTML that a
compliant HTML UA will render differently from a tag-soup one."

So we get back to XHTML being a vehicle for sending more and worse tag soup out
as text/html (the number of bugs reported on Mozilla because someone wrote, or
rather copied, some XHTML that doesn't even satisfy Appendix C of XHTML 1.0 and
then served it as text/html is rapidly climbing into the hundreds; if current
trends continue, that will become _the_ most-reported "parser bug" we see by
next year....)

Again, if you can author XHTML that works fine in all the browsers involved and
is valid, more power to you and this discussion is not about you.

Boris
-- 
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:

The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety
percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the
other ninety percent.
Received on Friday, 13 December 2002 20:10:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:53 GMT