* Amir E. Aharoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-17 16:25]: > WordPress is an example of a webserver software tool that does > try to produce standard XHTML. It does it by default and very > few bloggers who use it care about it or, for that matter, > notice it.
Psh, whatever. Everyone serves their XHTML as `text/html`, in which case no browser cares about the fact that it is supposedly XML, and instead uses the tagsoup parser. Almost everyone who thinks they’re serving XHTML is actually serving funny-looking HTML (and that is broken according to SGML rules). Sites which actually serve their markup as `application/xhtml+xml` are very rare, not least because the MSFT browser doesn’t support the MIME type. Many of those who do so, actually serve the *same* markup as `text/html` to IE and as `application/xhtml+xml` to modern browsers – which is very dumb for many reasons (that I can expound on at request). I have reluctantly had to realise that unless you need to embed SVG, MathML or other XML vocabularies, choosing XHTML is a stupid idea. * Aankhen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-17 21:00]: > XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 offer no practical benefits over HTML, but > tangible disadvantages. To be fair, XHTML does let you embed MathML and SVG (as well as XForms, pending browser support) in your markup, which is a great boon where applicable. But that’s the only benefit XHTML provides as of yet. > If the XHTML produced by the module adheres to the W3C > standard, there won't be any elements that only work in certain > browsers (with the exception of <abbr>... no others I can think > of offhand). Plenty. IE6 doesn’t understand `q`, off the top of my head. I know there are several more, plus a few that *no* browser supports. On top of this, roughly 80% (or so it sometimes feels) of the useful attributes defined in HTML do not have any tangible browser support (such as `cite` on `blockquote`/`q`, or `datetime` on `ins`/`del`). Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
