Pier Fumagalli <pier <at> betaversion.org> writes: > > But why not staying with HTML then??? Why is the XHTMLSerializer be used > > in those cases? IMO we should NOT implement any special case handling in > > XHTMLSerializer but tell the people to use the HTMLSerializer. > > As the original author of the code, if you don't want to implement > quirks, then, what's the difference between the "XHTML" serializer and > the "XML" serializer?
That's exactly what Grek put into question [1]. But I think it's ok to do some of the specific stuff [2]. > If you don't need quirks, you don't need to support browsers, then > simply use the XMLSerializer and forget about it, the XHTML and HTML > do exactly this job of supporting as many browsers as possible, no? I gave my reasoning at [3]: You address quirks in the XHTMLSerializer which you'd not need if you were not using it. Furthermore you introduce further problems by forcing the browser into the quirks mode as it can't understand XHTML anyway. Delivering standard conform HTML is much more appropriate for those browsers. Joerg [1] http://marc.info/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=117407836212241&w=4 [2] http://marc.info/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=117408459418886&w=4 [3] http://marc.info/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=117422523711377&w=4
