On 9/19/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* 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.
Not XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1... there you need to use the compound
document types, e.g. XHTML + SVG + MathML. Since we're being fair,
XHTML 1.1 also offers specific elements for Ruby.
> 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`).
IE doesn't render q correctly, but the content of the element is still
available. As far as the attributes go, that's a UI problem with the
browsers. :-) Come to think of it, as long as those attributes show up
in the DOM correctly, I don't see how you could not support them.
Perhaps we could say no *useful* browser support?