- From: Andreas Prilop <Prilop2007@trashmail.net>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:20:43 +0200 (MEST)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Sierk Bornemann wrote: >> HTML and XHTML are different. > > Except the Doctype, the html namespace and the adequate Mimetype > (served Content type) -- where are the the differences concerning the > *content*, especially concerning the markup elements and the semantics? Hint: <BR> <br /> If you really don't understand the difference between HTML and XHTML, I won't explain it to you. > As you proved above with your own documents, you serve it twice. And, > more difficult, you have to provide it twice on the server. http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/ruby-annotation.html http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/ruby-annotation.xhtml exist twice because ruby markup formally exists in XHTML 1.1 only. But I have an (unspecified) HTML version, too, to show that Internet Explorer 6.0 will also display ruby markup with complex scripts. > But what about dynamically served and maybe frequently > changed documents? What about documents generated by a Content > Management System or Blog? If you want to serve content on the web, do it in HTML 4 (Strict) and forget about XHTML! The web runs on HTML. > You have to provide each document twice as .html document and > as .xhtml document? Of course not! When you want to present come document, do it with HTML 4 and text/html ! It's only you, who has the silly obsession to serve one and the same document with different MIME types. What's the point? *You* have an obsession to serve one MIME type to Internet Explorer and another MIME type to other browsers. I continue to call this a stupid idea - no matter what olivier Thereaux says about politeness.
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 14:21:06 UTC