- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:33:03 +0100
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:09:20 +1000, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at iinet.net.au> wrote: > You have got to be kidding! You can't seriously believe that IE is > better at XHTML, considering the follwing problems: > > 1. Presenting a save dialog when served XHTML asplication/xhtml+xml. That can (or as I noted could it doesn't now work under my XP) be changed by configuration. > 2. Requiring XSLT to trick it into rendering XHTML 1.0 served as > application/xml, which appears to prevent incremental rendering and > makes it exceptionally slow. Yep, that's awful, but that wasn't necessary, all you needed to do was make IE render it. > 3. giving the following error when served XHTML 1.1 as application/xml: GOOD! I absolutely do not believe a browser should attempt to render application/xml. (it's also been fixed AIUI) > They're just the ones I know about, I'm sure there would be many more. > IE certainly does not support XHTML; it doesn't even fully support > HTML4. It has only ever supported tag soup. Indeed, it shows how much better a tag-soup renderer is than Mozilla in XHTML mode (Mozilla's tag-soup mode shows it to of course!) Jim.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 06:33:03 UTC