W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2002

Re: CSS3 specs using invalid XHTML samples

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:50:59 +0000 (GMT)
To: Joshua Prowse <prowsej@fastmail.fm>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0208142242340.28529-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Joshua Prowse wrote:
> The current version of HTML that the W3C recommends that people use
> on their pages is XHTML.
> If the W3C doesn't use XHTML in its own recommendations, how can it
> expect web authors to do so?

Well, people seem to have no trouble writing pages in what they claim
is XHTML, so that doesn't seem to be a problem. [1]

I don't see any particular advantage to rewriting all the examples to
use XHTML. I see one distinct _dis_advantage, which is that the
several years of proof reading that these examples have been receiving
would be wasted. It was hard enough getting the 300-page spec to its
current state, I'd rather not have to rewrite the examples now.

However, if there are any validation errors, they should be corrected.

[1] What _is_ a problem is the fact that most of these "XHTML" pages
don't validate, and thus any client that actually handled XHTML sent
as text/html as XHTML rather than as tag soup (which is what WinIE,
MacIE, Mozilla, Konqueror and Opera do, for instance) would end up
printing a validation error instead of the page.

And since the whole point of XHTML was to avoid the problem with tag
soup and just use valid markup, I don't see that encouraging people to
use XHTML with text/html is a particularly good thing.

Ian Hickson                                     )\     _. - ._.)       fL
                                               /. `- '  (  `--'
                                               `- , ) -  > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________  (.' \) (.' -' __________
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 18:51:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:03 UTC