On Jun 15, 5:48 pm, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:
> > I thought it wouldn't come as a surprise that using XHTML makes no
> > sense...
> Hey, HTML and CSS make no sense, let alone XHTML. But that's OT. :-)
> I'm just saying, the doctype that seems to be recommended is XHTML
By who? Certainly not by those who understand the issues involved -
search the archives at:
XHTML is pretty much dead, it is essentially replaced by HTML 5. The
vast majority of documents with an XHTML DOCTYPE are served as text/
html, so they are treated by browsers as invalid HTML.
It was something of a fad to pretend to use XHTML, it serves no useful
purpose. I always chuckle when I see an IIS server using the default
XHTML DOCTYPE, then serve it as text/html. If it was served as XML, IE
would not know what to do with it since IE is one of the few modern
browsers that don't know what XML is. A clear case of style over
> so that's what I use as I don't have a strong reason for
> doing anything else, and in the XHTML transitional doctype, <br/> is
> correct and I'm guessing requires less work from the browser.
> But of course, you're right that if you don't specify any doctype or
> if you specify an HTML doctype, you want <br>. I don't know if that's
> going to be 99% of the time, but it's going to be a big number.
> The take away for the OP is: Use a doctype (just about any doctype),
> and then use <br> or <br/> depending on what doctype you're using.
The DOCTYPE is pretty much irrelevant except for switching to or from
standards mode (or "almost" standards mode). Whether the document is
treated as XML or HTML depends on the response header content type.
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@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at