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

RE: Is this legal XHTML 1.1?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:46:12 +0000 (GMT)
To: Richard Norman <normri@samc.com>
Cc: "jelks@jelks.nu" <jelks@jelks.nu>, "bzbarsky@MIT.EDU" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0212170641530.17087-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Richard Norman wrote:
> Ok, after this post is all said and done, what are we in the business
> world to do? For those who are not allowed to send dynamic content to
> adjust the MIME type on the fly, what are our alternatives?

Use HTML 4.01 is the most obvious possibility.

Authors don't use CSS3 yet, so why do they use XHTML 1.1?

It took 6 years for CSS1 to go from spec to being truly usable -- why do
people not expect to wait as long for XHTML?

> I personally am moving towards XHTML


> And when the backward compatibility is not as necessary, we can them
> switch the document to .XML or setup the .XHTML extension on the
> server...

I guarentee that you will hit problems when you do this. There is no
reason why you have to switch existing content to XHTML -- for example the
billions of HTML 3.2 documents out there are never going to be converted.
So why use XHTML now, when you _know_ that it is going to give you trouble
when you evetually convert?

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 01:46:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:01 UTC