- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 14:49:40 +0100
- To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>
Karl Dubost wrote: >> 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_ ... > 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)". Actually, as demonstrated before (where IE gets confused when an empty script element is minimised - perfectly valid under XHTML 1.0), the dominant browser only understands *compatible* XHTML 1.0 (as per appendix C) sent as text/html. At which stage, I can understand why some people are wondering: "why bother? why not use HTML 4.01 instead?" -- Patrick H. Lauke _____________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 13:49:37 UTC