Re: Bug in Meta handling

Kynn Bartlett:

> The compatibility suggestions in the XHTML spec are designed to
> tell you how to write XHTML which can be understood by HTML 
> browsers, not to tell you how to write XHTML which validates as
> HTML.  In general, XHTML will -not- validate as HTML.
 
You're right, but I have a slight problem with the way you phrase 
what you say. I my mind XHTML 1.0 _is_ HTML, but of course not 
HTML 4.01 or HTML 3.2 etc.

XHTML 1.0 is the current HTML recommendation, at least that's what
the recommendation itself says.

I'd phrase it like this:

  The compatibility suggestions in the XHTML spec are designed to
  tell you how to write XHTML which can be understood by old HTML 
  browsers, not to tell you how to write XHTML which validates as
  HTML 4.0.  In general, XHTML will -not- validate as any old
  form of HTML.

Of course HTML itself has been profoundly changed when going from
HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0. It has moved to follow the rules of XML,
but it is still HTML.

Maybe this is just semantic nitpicking, but if we are to get
XHTML popular, we need to get away from the myth that XHTML is
not a kind of HTML. Some people seem to think that HTML 4.01
is still the current form of HTML. It's not.

#####################################################################
                         Bertilo Wennergren
                 <http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
                        <bertilow@chello.se>
#####################################################################

Received on Monday, 25 December 2000 05:22:09 UTC