- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:42:47 +1000
Jim Ley wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:09:20 +1000, Lachlan Hunt > <lachlan.hunt at iinet.net.au> wrote: >>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. Why not? It's been defined as an acceptable MIME type for XHTML, and is, along with text/xml, the only registered type for any generic XML document. > (it's also been fixed AIUI) What exactly has been fixed? >>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!) What? The fact that it doesn't support HTML or XHTML at all, is your reason for saying that it's better than a compliant XHTML UA? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Seriously, take a look at my site in IE, and then tell me you still think IE is better at rendering, compared with Mozilla and Opera! -- Lachlan Hunt http://www.lachy.id.au/ lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 07:42:47 UTC