- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:02:02 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-talk@w3.org
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ian Hickson wrote: > Yes, it is argued that XML declarations should not appear in XHTML > documents intended for Tag Soup parsers. I think we're agreed that this - the desirability/advisability of intending XHTML documents for Tag Soup processors - is a bass-ackwards approach to progress. > I'm still looking for a good reason to write websites in XHTML _at > the moment_, given that the majority of web browsers don't grok > XHTML. The only reason I was given (by Dan Connolly [1]) is that > it makes managing the content using XML tools easier... but it > would be just as easy to convert the XML to tag soup or HTML > before publishing it, so I'm not sure I understand that. Agreed. (And at that, why restrict oneself to XML tools? SGML tools work too.) > And even then, having the content as XML for content management is > one thing, but why does that require a minority of web browsers to > have to treat the document as XML instead of tag soup? What's the > advantage of doing that? And even _then_, if the person in control > of the content is using XML tools and so on, they are almost > certainly in control of the website as well, so why not do the > content type munging on the server side instead of campaigning for > UA authors to spend their already restricted resources on > implementing content type sniffing? Well said. Is the perceived lack of Content Negotiation the real problem here, that we have to scrounge for workarounds? Arjun
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 01:54:11 UTC