On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Tor Aqissiaq <toraqiss...@googlemail.com> wrote: > What is wrong with XHTML? Are you implying that HTML is superior?
Yes, HTML is superior to XHTML, I was wrong about this one for years, but now it is completely clear to me that XML is *always* the wrong answer, and XHTML is what proved it, even something as bad as HTML becomes worse when one adds XML. As I said in another post, loading XHTML documents is *slower* than loading HTML! XHTML only has one good thing about it: the abomination that is document.write() doesn't work in XHTML! Of course this actually contributed to its failure, which is a good thing too. uriel > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Anselm R Garbe <ans...@garbe.us> wrote: >> 2009/10/18 Tor Aqissiaq <toraqiss...@googlemail.com>: >>> XHTML, parsed using an XML parser is very specifically defined and >>> does not look different in different browsers, but few people serve >>> XHTML documents with the application/xhtml+xml headers, because IE >>> refuses to parse XML. XHTML parsed as HTML + no better than HTML. I >>> already use XHTML for sending documents to my friends. >> >> XHTML is a sick child that will die soon. >> >> Kind regards, >> Anselm >> >> > >
