Gertjan Klein wrote: > Denver Braughler wrote: > >Peter Cooper wrote: > >> Well what more can ISC do to develop CSP - HTML is a very simple > >> concept and I think they have gone as far as they can > >For one thing, they could upgrade to strict XHTML. > > AFAIK, the CSP engine is perfectly capable of sending XHTML
But it does not generate XHTML. All the HTML generated on a CSP tends to be UPPERCASE with a variety of quoted, unquoted, and omitted parameter values. Optional closing tags are usually (or always) missing. > 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. It can be sent as text/html with a !DOCTYPE for XHTML which keeps it backward compatible.. > http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml That's a bogus gripe. It requires: "Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, because it is, after all, XHTML." I don't see the logic in that. Therefore, there is no problem for me. I won't decide to do something that doesn't make sense.
