Re: The Return of "WaSP Asks the W3C"

"steph" <sniffles@unadorned.org>
> The answer? You'll have to peek at:
> http://www.webstandards.org/learn/askw3c/sep2003.html

It's an interesting article, and many thanks to the W3 team guys for doing
this, but it's a rather strange choice of question, as you've not answered
"Why author XHTML?",   which mime-type is indeed a problem for many, however
until you've established why we want to author in a way which gives us
"syntactic tricks which allows an XHTML document to be understood by most
HTML browsers."  I don't see the value of the question,  to me HTML 4.01
allows us to be accessed by not _most HTML browsers_  but all.

The article also says "using content negotiation ... you can actually serve
your XHTML 1.0 as ..."   which gives implicit support for this method, yet
fails to mention the superior method of actually serving HTML as text/html
under content negotiation.  Translation from XHTML 1.0 to HTML 4.01 is a
machine process, there is no sensible reason to do content-negotiation and
serve the same document with different mime-types, the document should
reflect this and recommend different documents for the different mime-types.

Proper content-negotiation also allows you to use XHTML 1.1 rather than a
strange subset of 1.0 that has difficult QA (are there any tools which can
help with Appendix C conformance?).

My question for the W3C is "Why author XHTML? and why serve XHTML as
text/html ?"

Jim.

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 12:13:00 UTC