- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:16:15 +0100
- To: jcowan@reutershealth.com
- Cc: Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>, www-international@w3.org
On Thursday, March 25, 2004, 5:13:40 PM, jcowan wrote: jrc> Mark Davis scripsit: >> a.. We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible; and if you serve XHTML as >> text/html we assume that you are conforming to the compatibility guidelines in >> Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification. >> >> a.. We recognize that XHTML served as XML is still not widely supported, and >> that therefore many XHTML 1.0 pages will be served as text/html. >> >> Isn't this a pretty counter-productive recommendation; it sounds like you are >> saying: "we recommend that you use something that won't work on the vast >> majority of your users browsers"? jrc> No. What it says is: a) use XHTML for authoring; b) use the compatibility jrc> recommendations; c) label it as text/html. Or, better c) serve it as application/xhtml+xmlto those user agents that say they can support it,and as text/html for the legacy ones that don't. Same content, but the more modern browsers go straight into standards mode more reliably, get the xml dom, reliable CSS, and so forth. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 21:16:30 UTC