begin quoting Paul G. Allen as of Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:39:38AM -0800: > On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 20:18 -0800, Rick Funderburg wrote: [snip] > > 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].
Why should _any_ mime times be supported, rather than being completely optional? > As with HTML, CSS, etc. if the browser writers would use the W3C > standards and verification tools, then all browsers would work far > better. You might as wish that the W3C would provide better standards; every time I go look at "W3C standards" I start wondering what sort of drugs they're smoking (and why they're on such a power-trip). They're not as bad as ECMA, but still... > This goes further to other web developers as well (I admit to my own > laziness at times when just trying to get a page or several pages done > quickly and I skip the standards verification step. So is it a problem with the browser developers or the web developers? -- A good reference implementation is what is needed. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
