In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Henri
Sivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zach Lipton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Why does it need to be html 4.01? I used XHTML because that is the
>> current standard.
>
> Copy-pasting from an older message of mine:
> "I think serving XHTML to Mozilla as text/html makes no sense unless you
>
> are using a tool that only outputs XHTML. (This is not the case with
> Editor or text editor.) XHTML served to Mozilla as text/html offers no
> benefit over HTML 4.01. The benefits come when XHTML is served as
> text/xml and combined with other applications of XML.
>
> I don't think we should set an example by serving XHTML as text/html. In
> that case the browser doesn't enforce well-formedness. I don't think we
> want the risk of accidentally ending up with non-well-formed
> sorta-XHTML legacy to deal with."
I thought there was consensus on www-html that XHTML documents should be
treated no differently by XHTML UAs whether they are sent as text/html or
application/xml (text/xml is wrong in any event). I think this is a bug
in Mozilla.
Braden
