On Feb 18, 7:38 pm, rasmusfl0e <[email protected]> wrote: > You might get better results using an actual XHTML doctype...
That is an actual XHTML doctype. See: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#the-doctype It's not a doctype of XHTML 1.0 strict or transitional; nor of XHTML 1.1. It provides no DTD for validation. But it is a doctype of "XHTML" in its general sense, which is HTML served as well-formed XML. > There's > no telling how browsers will react combining an xml declaration with > an HTML5 doctype I doubt there will be a problem. See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5629/any-reason-not-to-start-using-the-html-5-doctype Anyway, that's not the issue here (if it's an issue anywhere). > (HTML5!=xml). That is incorrect. HTML5 supports being served as XML---which yields XHTML 5: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/introduction.html#html-vs-xhtml http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-xhtml-syntax.html#the-xhtml-syntax > You might want to stay clear of using an xml declaration if what > you're building is supposed to work in IE (no support for application/ > xhtml+xml yet). > If that's even an option with the framework you're using. The framework I'm using is my own framework which I wrote from the ground up around 2005, before JQuery, Prototype, or MooTools were available. My framework correctly recognizes anemic browsers such as IE and serves them the XHTML as text/html, so there is no XHTML issue on those browsers. But all this is beside the point. I'm not talking about IE or other browsers that don't correctly process well-formed XHTML. I'm talking about a browser, Firefox, that understands XHTML perfectly well. My framework has been serving XHTML successfully to Firefox <3 for over five years---albeit until recently with a custom XHTML 1.1 modularized DTD. The point is that my framework makes it near impossible to have non-well-formed XHTML---unless you mix in a framework such as MooTools, which is currently spoiling the stew.
