On Jun 14, 4:15 am, "T.J. Crowder" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Isn't the recommended doctype when using Prototype xhtml > transitional? <br> doesn't validate in xhtml transitional, it has no > closing tag.
I thought it wouldn't come as a surprise that using XHTML makes no sense <http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml>. I know that Rails blindly uses XHTML. I remember Mislav mentioned that the issue was brought up on Rails mailing list but that noone seemed to care <http:// mislav.uniqpath.com/rails/cargo-culting-xhtml-considered-harmful/> I'm not sure about recommended doctype, but I know that Prototype most likely doesn't work when served and parsed as application/xhtml+xml. Object model of documents parsed as XML is different: from what I remember, `document.write` doesn't work, `innerHTML` parser works differently, etc. All of the Prototype's unit tests use XHTML doctype, but fail to set proper content-type response header. This means that browsers are told to *parse and render page as HTML*, but are actually being served a so- called xhtml tag soup <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_soup>, which they simply correct into proper HTML (this correction also takes time, of course, but I'm not sure if it's significant). I personally have never seen Prototype tests run as real XHTML, so I can't be sure that it works. [...] -- kangax --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
