Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>...
> > What exactly is wrong with XHTML served as text/html ?
>
> Rather the question should be: "What does XHTML offer that HTML
> doesn't?"
Much easier migration to XML in the future.
> There is no benefit over HTML when XHTML is served as text/html. There
> is just the "XHTML is newer than HTML so it is cooler" factor.
> However, when XHTML is served as text/html, the XML parser isn't there
> enforcing well-formedness.
Good -- it wouldn't be very nice if we were blocked from reading an
entire page just because someone had missed a / character in a tag
somewhere.
> Publishing bogus XHTML accidentally would
> set a bad example.
>...
Could you please clarify that? Set a bad example for whom? And why?
Perhaps you'd like to explain why XHTML 1.0 Transitional exists, if not
to be served as text/html and understood by browsers of any age?
HTML 4.01 Strict seems like the worst possible of the current doctypes
we could choose from. It would not be easily upgradable to XHTML, and it
would look really boring on browsers without stylesheet support. Or in
other words, it would combine all the forwards incompatibility of HTML
with all the backwards incompatibility of Strict. Yay.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
