RE: [WSG] invalid xhtml
Hi Patrick, I beg to differ on this hair-splitting point: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/#text-html [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html I'm not sure that we differ on this point. The W3C dictates that we MAY (1) serve XHTML1 as HTML. Good sense(2) argues that we SHOULD serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml. Doing otherwise is disingenuous(3) and could introduce subtle bugs, and lord knows we have enough subtle bugs to work around as is. Cheers, Andrew Taumoefolau 1. Apologies for busting out the RFC language. 2. http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml 3. We ought to be proud that we're serving xml! :) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] invalid xhtml
From: Andrew Sione Taumoefolau [...] I'm not sure that we differ on this point. after re-reading your message, you're right. As I skimmed over the 100 odd emails in this list's folder that accumulated over the weekend, I could have sworn you had written MUST NOT, instead of SHOULD NOT. Ah, I love those subtle differences ;) P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] invalid xhtml
Then there is the situation of low-cost shared hosting. Perhaps you folks can help clear up this question: Our community sites reside on telus shared-hosting (apache servers) and while I try to 'follow' the excellent advice I find here on the list and elsewhere, we're not getting the results we would expect. We have no control over the http headers. Even though I've mounted XHMTL 1. 0 Strict with the MIME type application/xhtml+xml, Mozilla still shows it as text/html. Should I revert back to text/html, since this would appear to be what is being served out, beyond our control? Roy - Original Message - From: Andrew Sione Taumoefolau [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:02 AM Subject: RE: [WSG] invalid xhtml Hi Patrick, I beg to differ on this hair-splitting point: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/#text-html [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html I'm not sure that we differ on this point. The W3C dictates that we MAY (1) serve XHTML1 as HTML. Good sense(2) argues that we SHOULD serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml. Doing otherwise is disingenuous(3) and could introduce subtle bugs, and lord knows we have enough subtle bugs to work around as is. Cheers, Andrew Taumoefolau 1. Apologies for busting out the RFC language. 2. http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml 3. We ought to be proud that we're serving xml! :) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] invalid xhtml
Hi Patrick, or you could convert it to xhtml 1.0 strict, which *may* still be sent as text/html XHTML 1.0 strict is still XML, which means that you should not send it as text/html. Hey look! Angels, on the head of that pin! :) Cheers, Andrew * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] invalid xhtml
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: Amidst all the hubhub about Standards and Validation, some people are arguing that they use XHTML served correctly as application/xhtml+xml to ensure that their documents validate. Their reasoning is: if I make a mistake in my code, browsers will fail to render the documents. This is partially true of course, xml parsing will fail if tags are mismatched (ex. forgetting a closing tag). But this will *not* guarantee that the document is valid xhtml 1.1. That's because Firefox, even though it checks for well formedness, doesn't check for validity. The best solution is to sniff if the UA accepts application/xhtml+xml, and if so, serve XHTML, otherwise, convert it to HTML4.01 and serve it that way. One of the advantages of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML can be easily and quickly converted to HTML, while the reverse isn't true. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] invalid xhtml
Mordechai Peller spoke the following wise words on 18/06/2004 7:47 PM EST: That's because Firefox, even though it checks for well formedness, doesn't check for validity. The best solution is to sniff if the UA accepts application/xhtml+xml, and if so, serve XHTML, otherwise, convert it to HTML4.01 and serve it that way. One of the advantages of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML can be easily and quickly converted to HTML, while the reverse isn't true. Yes, XML is (relatively) easy to manipulate but the point of the discussion is schema validation. Most XML parsers are non-validating (i.e. they don't validate that the given document conforms to its schema). To serve validating XHTML content the best solution is to use a schema validating editor (e.g. DreamweaverMX04, XMLSpy) and to ensure your server-side components are validating and dealing with errors. The attitude at the moment is that it's not a high priority for web developers to ensure their documents are 100% valid. If you're going to do this then simply don't serve it with a mime-type of xhtml+xml. -- tim lucas http://www.toolmantim.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
