Now that's new to me. Will have to read up on that. But then I see no point
in XHTML 1.1, because wasn't it mean to be modulized and extendible by XML?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keryx Web" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type
Thomas Thomassen skrev:
There's no difference between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 Strict. XHTML 1.1
only advantage is that it's modulized
Not entirely true. XHTML 1.1 includes ruby.
and can only be sent as XML so it can be extended. If you're not
extending it then you're better off with XHTML 1.0.
FWIW - and I do not wish to reopen the "considered harmful" debate -
appendix C allows for sending XHTML 1.1 as well as XHTML 1.0 as text/html.
(That's a recent change in the specs that few seem to know about.)
Lars Gunther
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
