- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:06:52 -0700
- To: tina@greytower.net
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 02:20 PM, tina@greytower.net wrote: > On 25 Jun, Matt May wrote: >> So? Same's true of HTML 4.01 Strict: Amaya refuses to render invalid >> Strict content. But the other browser makers (rightly) assume that >> it's >> better to accommodate the user by working around errors in authored >> content than to punish them. > > Should we interpret that to mean that a user-agent should > "accommodate" users by ignoring parts of the XML specs when rendering > XHTML ? > > If so, any other parts we should have fun with ignoring whilst we're > at it ? Exactly. This illustrates one of the serious problems with XHTML: you can either be a _reasonable_ piece of software and allow poorly formed XHTML to still display (and thus be in violation of the XML specification), or you can be _compliant_ and present an unreasonable burden on the user. This is an "inherent feature" of XHTML. Other inherent features include the fact that you can't include javascript or CSS within the file -- they have to be in external files -- while still maintaining backwards compatibility with older browsers. It's true; the <!-- comment --> trick no longer works in XHTML 1.0, and anyone who puts Javascript or CSS within <!-- comments --> should NOT have those items recognized by an XHTML browser. To a proper XHTML browser, these are equivalent statements: <style type="text/css" /> and <style type="text/css"> <!-- /* hide from older browsers */ body { background-color: blue; color: white; } p { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; } #footer { font-size: 90%; } --> </style> If you have an XHTML browser that would display the above CSS rules, you don't have a proper XHTML browser! --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 18:01:25 UTC