[whatwg] Seperation of Content and Interface

>>> So why hasn't XHTML replaced HTML?
>> 
>> Because as I said below, it offers no benefits, and huge 
>> disadvantages, the mozilla implementation is laughable (no
>> incremental rendering of HTML!).
> 
> Is incremental rendering really possible for XHTML? For give my 
> ignorance, but I was under the impression that according to 
> specification an XHTML document has to validate entirely before being
> displayed. If that's the case, a compliant application can't start 
> loading the document until the entire file is transferred. Isn't
> Mozilla simply sticking to the letter of the spec?

No, it doesn't have to be that way[1]. (Incremental rendering is 
possible. No browser is by the way a validating browser.)


>>> The difference of course is that WF2 is implementable in IE,
>>> whereas XHTML fundamentally isn't.
>> 
>> Of course XHTML is, IE6 is the best XHTML browser IMO, it renders
>> it far better than the others, it's incremental, it's fast, the
>> only problem is you have to jump through hoops to make it even do
>> it (although I've got a feeling it's not even possible in the
>> current releases.)
> 
> As I explained before, it is my understanding that a compliant XHTML
> renderer will not display a page with invalid markup. IE6 is so
> "good" at rendering XHTML because it does not parse or render it as
> XHTML at all. Effectively, you're saying that Mozilla would be so
> much better if it rendered XHTML as tag soup.

IE has a better XML parser[2]. It doesn't really support the XHTML MIME
type and namespace however.


[1]<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18333>
[2]<http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2004/07/ie-xhtml>
    <http://dean.edwards.name/my/application_xml.html>


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 04:24:02 UTC