Rick Funderburg wrote: > Tracy R Reed wrote: >> Mark Phillips wrote: >>> On Feb 20, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Gus Wirth wrote: >>>> Don't try to use OpenOffice. I just did a quick check, and the >>>> output is some XHTML that should be cast into the pits of hell >>>> before being unleashed onto humanity. >>> >>> OK, I'll bite... why do you feel this way? >> >> I don't think he was saying xhtml is bad. I think he was saying that >> OO generates bad (ugly) xhtml. >> > Indeed. But if you do want a reason to not like XHTML, you could claim > that it is poorly supported by browsers, since some browsers (like IE) > do not support the appropriate mime types[1]. > > [1]: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
The "XHTML .. is poorly supported" statement may be a bit too strong. There is indeed confusion about proper content-type to serve, and about browser behavior that can be expected under various combinations of physical content and advertised content-type. Another page addressing, somewhat more thoroughly, the same question as above is http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php It is my observation that there is a respectable amount of xhtml being delivered, although authors are self-regulating to avoid a variety of browser headaches. Having said that, I admit that my current practice is to write html4 strict, but try to be as close to xhtml as possible, so that when I add the xml prolog, the namespace stuff, and fix just a couple additional minor details, it should be ok as xhtml. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
