Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > SpringFlowers AutumnMoon wrote: > [...] >> hm... so the XHTML will just be used as html... > > Not really; the DOCTYPE still tells the browser that it's XHTML.
except IE use it as HTML. > and we aim to output it >> as XHTML anyway... >> >> pragmatically, it will work... i just wonder why we don't just output >> what is really being accepted by most browsers. > > Most browsers have no problem. IE is the exception, sort of. Please note that MOST BROWSERS out there are IE. about 66%. So how do you mean most browser has no problem when 66% of browsers have problem? > Anyway, XHTML is a cleaner standard than HTML -- since it's 100% > well-formed XML, it's easier to parse and more extensible. There is > absolutely no reason *not* to use XHTML for all your output. You are > creating a problem out of thin air. I hope you won't accuse people of something. HTML is a standard. XHTML is a standard. If some people want to use a particular standard, it is not so bad as "creating a problem out of thin air". -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
