Denver Braughler wrote: >Gertjan Klein wrote:
>> AFAIK, the CSP engine is perfectly capable of sending XHTML > >But it does not generate XHTML. You were talking about the cspbind and other predefined tags then? They don't even generate valid HTML, and I never use them. It would be nice if these tags did some kind of doctype sniffing and adjusted their output accordingly. If you meant "upgrading" in that sense, then I agree -- but only if they also support valid html as well. >> XHTML, according to the standard, has to be sent as mime >> type application/xhtml+xml > >That's not my concern at all and it sounds *wrong* to me. If you want to code xhtml, the standard determines what your concern is, not you. A standard is, by definition, never wrong. >It can be sent as text/html with a !DOCTYPE for XHTML which >keeps it backward compatible.. Yes, but only in a very limited sense. You can only send xhtml 1.0 (compliant with appendix C) as text/html; that's not very future-proof. See e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary (Note that the phrase used is SHOULD NOT, which denotes a strong recommendation as opposed to a requirement, but still.) The current xhtml standard is 1.1, and 2.0 is in it's sixth working draft. >> http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml > >That's a bogus gripe. You should have read the whole document. It addresses both issues that arise when a document must be served as both valid html and xhtml, and the problems with sending (in itself valid) xhtml served as text/html. Gertjan. -- Gertjan Klein
