- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 08:10:44 -0400
- To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>
Le 05-05-20 à 18:37, Pid a écrit : > I'm losing the will to live, just thinking about content types. please don't. You just the most mature opinion about it ;) > It's well established that the popular UA's handle XHTML badly, in > some way or other. Again no. :) popular UAs handle badly "XHTML 1.0" and "XHTML 1.1" served with _application/xhtml+xml_ And only talking about mime types. > Until 90% of browsers out there can properly handle XHTML 1.1, (or > higher), we have to recognise that we are in an extended period of > transition, the termination of which is largely dependant on > Microsoft. It's why I haven't recommended in its long thread to use XHTML 1.1, and I have insisted on "XHTML 1.0 (text/html)". > We have to be pragmatic and accept that the 1.0 Transitional and > Strict specs are about educating people, and getting them into good > habits for the future. Which, I rather thought, was the point of > this mailing list. 100% agreed. :) -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 12:10:52 UTC