- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:43:11 +0200
>> 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. > > I'm not sure how IE handles this, but a compliant browser should > render XHTML in one of two ways: IE will handle it as tag soup. Or, when hacked around[2] it will use an XML parser. > When the XHTML is labeled as text/html a traditional SGML parser > should be used, and the document should be compliant with Appendix C > of the XHTML spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines Appendix C is crap[3]. When XHTML is labeled as text/html it is treated as most HTML on todays web is. Tag soup. > When the XHTML is labeled as application/xhtml+xml as defined by RFC > 3236 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt ) an XML renderer should > be used. In this case I would assume that rendering before the entire > document is recieved is backwards, as an invalid document should not > render at all. Valid or invalid has nothing to do with it. Being well-formed is key. RFC > More details on XHTML media types can be found here: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/ That is note, please don't quote or refer to it otherwise than that[1]. [1]<http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2004/08/xhtml-media-types> [2]<http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2004/07/ie-xhtml> <http://dean.edwards.name/my/application_xml.html> [3]<http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml> -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 04:43:11 UTC