Re: XHTML 1.0, section C14

2006/11/22, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>:
> I should think XHTML is more expensive to develop for than HTML because
> it is less backwards compatible, so supporting both old-fashioned and
> modern user agents takes up more developer time.
More developer time? ok, ok

> Microsoft's stated reasons for driving web designers up the wall can be
> found at:
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx

Yes, i know. But
"I made the decision to not try to support the MIME type in IE7 simply
because I personally want XHTML to be successful in the long run"

XHTML1, i think. A little numbering question. XHTML1 for secula
seculorum? great! i want html 3.2 for the good of web.

Livio