I always thought that hixie 'considered harmful' paper was kinda
silly...
if you look at his main reason for writing it:
" 1. Authors write XHTML that makes assumptions that are only valid for
tag soup or HTML4 UAs, and not XHTML UAs, and send it as
text/html. (The common assumptions are listed below.)
2. Authors find everything works fine.
3. Time passes.
4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml,
because it is, after all, XHTML.
5. Author finds site breaks horribly. (See below for a list of
reasons why.)
6. Author blames XHTML."
the whole reason it's 'considered harmful' boils down to the fact
that he doesn't want stupid developers 'blaming' the technology.
it's not that it's bad for your clients, or isn't forward compatible,
or anything like that... it's just that he thinks developers will
give xhtml a bad name if they don't understand it.. which to me seems
really silly and is no basis to write a technical document like that.
On Sep 15, 2006, at 7:12 PM, Michael Stuhr wrote:
> Claus Wahlers schrieb:
>> http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
>> He has a point too.
> validation is not everything. but if you've read schneegans'
> article to
> the end, you may have come to the same point.
>
> if you write xhtml-strict, use an xml-validator. if your page
> validates,
> perfect!
> Sending XHTML as |text/html| is now no longer considered harmful.
>
>
> micha
>
> _______________________________________________
> osflash mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
