- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 05:38:46 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
- Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Christian Wolfgang Hujer wrote: >> >> http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml > Point 2 about script/style is outdated. No current non-XHTML ua renders > script/style element contents, even when they are not commented. That doesn't matter: people still comment the script and style elements out, whether it is needed or not. > Point 3 I am not sure of, I think the SGML specs had been updated for that. Nope, they haven't. > Point 4 has bad argumentation: "Since most authors only check their documents > using one or two UAs..., and thus most XHTML documents on the web now > are invalid." Because plants are green, most trees are invalid. It's not > concerning valid documents. Eh? Please point out the exact step where you think there is a logic error: Most authors only check their documents using one or two UAs, rather than using a validator. Ergo these authors are not checking for validity. Most authors (including me) occasionally include at least one error in their documents, making them ill-formed. Ergo the authors that are a cross-section of both groops, and use XHTML, are placing invalid XHTML documents on the web. Since the two groups are huge proportions of the Web authoring community, as a quick perusal of XHTML sites will show,most XHTML documents on the web now are invalid. Where is the error? > Point 5 again bad argumentation. Again it's not concerning valid documents. This document isn't some sort of theoretical excercise. It is listing practical reasons why using text/html for XHTML is bad. One of those reasons is that if you ever switch your XHTML documents from text/html to text/xml, then you will in all likelyhood end up with a considerable number of XML errors, meaning your content won't be readable by users. (Most XHTML documents do not validate.) I don't know of _anyone_ who has switched or could switch from text/html to an XML MIME type without a single problem. > Point 6 that could be considered by the CSS author. Yes, all of these points _could_ be considered. But they are not. > Point 7 see 6 See above. > Point 8 Only sometimes. But definitely not on Windows when the ending is > .html. Whenever you save an XHTML document to disk as an XHTML document, e.g. on Windows using the .xhtml or .xml extension, or on Unix on a system that detects XHTML by examining the DOCTYPE, you will hit this problem. > Point 9 No. I could use those tools to *parse* XHTML, not generate or > modify. Nothing stops you using real XHTML internally, and publishing HTML. > And XSLT won't transform *from* HTML, only *to* HTML, and only if the > processor supports that. That is all I meant: store it internally as XHTML, and serve HTML. > Point 10 HTML 4.01 is not XML. That's reason enough. Exactly. People consider jumping on the bandwagon reason enough. and that is _sad_. > Are you very sure about <br /> should be rendered as 
>? Last time I > looked that up in SGML, it looked otherwise to me. Look again. This is a definite fact. (Look up NET SHORTTAG). > Using XHTML and sending it as text/html is tag soup. But I might send it as > application/xhtml+xml or text/html, depending on the UA. That totally screws up caching. > I think you should update your document to reflect the fact that > application/xhtml+xml exists. See appendix A at the bottom. > Anyhow, both, RFC2854 and RFC3236 are informational Well in that case, there's absolutely no reason to be using text/html at all, is there. I don't see your point. > So I can't see why you consider these two RFCs of such very high > importantance. What else gives you any allowance to send anything as text/html or application/xhtml+xml? >>> I have the feeling, that Mozilla and IE6 interpret at least entities from >>> the internal subset of the DTD, even when the document is served as >>> text/html. >> Mozilla makes no attempt to parse the internal subset in HTML. > It does with application/xhtml+xml. That's not HTML. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 13 December 2002 00:38:54 UTC