Well, let me play devil's advocate then....
If XHTML is valid XML via method="xml". why on earth is method="xhtml" added
to the 2.0 working draft?
Two reasons I can think of..
#1. text/xml vs. text/html content-type.
Can be fixed vy using media-type="text/html", assuming the processor uses
it
#2. In XHTML <p></p> != <p />, while in XML it does, if for no other reason
than from a rendering standpoint.
Which is my point, When I put in <p></p>, I want exactly that returned to
me.
Yes, you can put in there, yes you can CDATA it, but the more
working around the system I have to do to output XHTML is more time that the
goodness of XML/XSL/XSLT is lost.
For that matter, I believe method="xml" strips ending XHTML slash spaces
<br /> turns into <br/>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Le grande pinguin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:41 AM
> To: Christopher H. Laco
> Cc: 'Tod Harter'; 'AxKit List'
> Subject: Re: MSIE Render; Content-Type Questions
>
>
<snip]
> It doesn't fit 'html', but why not 'xml' methods. AFAIK xhtml
> is perfectly
> valid xml. I get the impression that you want/need to feed
> xhtml to non-
> xml aware browsers by faking something digestable to those
> broken implementions
> (the 'ol <br /> hack :-) Curse on the browser industry, not
> the XSLT implementors.
> You ask them to do the same mistake again (producing
> non-standard conforming output).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
