- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:50:59 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Joshua Prowse <prowsej@fastmail.fm>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Joshua Prowse wrote:
>
> The current version of HTML that the W3C recommends that people use
> on their pages is XHTML.
>
> If the W3C doesn't use XHTML in its own recommendations, how can it
> expect web authors to do so?
Well, people seem to have no trouble writing pages in what they claim
is XHTML, so that doesn't seem to be a problem. [1]
I don't see any particular advantage to rewriting all the examples to
use XHTML. I see one distinct _dis_advantage, which is that the
several years of proof reading that these examples have been receiving
would be wasted. It was hard enough getting the 300-page spec to its
current state, I'd rather not have to rewrite the examples now.
However, if there are any validation errors, they should be corrected.
[1] What _is_ a problem is the fact that most of these "XHTML" pages
don't validate, and thus any client that actually handled XHTML sent
as text/html as XHTML rather than as tag soup (which is what WinIE,
MacIE, Mozilla, Konqueror and Opera do, for instance) would end up
printing a validation error instead of the page.
And since the whole point of XHTML was to avoid the problem with tag
soup and just use valid markup, I don't see that encouraging people to
use XHTML with text/html is a particularly good thing.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
/. `- ' ( `--'
`- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 18:51:00 UTC