At 17:05 8-4-2002, Christopher H. Laco shared with all of us: >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, and because it's the core reason for creating the XHTML-spec: To create Well-formed XML, that is backwards compatible, with existing user-agents. So - all these 'non-standard' issues "Le grande pinguin" talks about, are in fact, specified as a standard - and - even more, they do not CONFLICT with XML and is therefore standard conforming output. > > 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). Best regards, Melvyn Sopacua WebMaster IDG.nl _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ If it applies, where it applies - this email is a personal contribution and does not reflect the views of my employer IDG.nl. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
