On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* L. David Baron wrote:
My dismissal of XHTML is that the designers of XHTML and related
standards are repeatedly introducing more and more incompatibility
between XHTML and HTML, which makes it progressively harder for
authors to transition to
Removing @rev is harmful for Lynx because that is how it decides who the
author is.
At any time while viewing documents within Lynx, you may use the 'c'
command to send a mail message to the owner of the current document if
the author of the document has specified ownership. (Note to
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Křištof Želechovski wrote:
Removing @rev is harmful for Lynx because that is how it decides who the
author is.
At any time while viewing documents within Lynx, you may use the 'c'
command to send a mail message to the owner of the current document if
the
* L. David Baron wrote:
My dismissal of XHTML is that the designers of XHTML and related
standards are repeatedly introducing more and more incompatibility
between XHTML and HTML, which makes it progressively harder for
authors to transition to XHTML (particularly to do so gradually on a
large
On Sunday 2007-03-11 18:26 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* L. David Baron wrote:
My dismissal of XHTML is that the designers of XHTML and related
standards are repeatedly introducing more and more incompatibility
between XHTML and HTML, which makes it progressively harder for
authors to
* Leons Petrazickis wrote:
Though Michael's homepage is invalid, it remains well-formed. Michael
is arguing for the inhert value of XML well-formedness, not validity.
The tool you've used to determine that does not work correctly.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ·
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:04:20 +0100, Michael Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One downside of using HTML is that errors in the document can cause odd
behaviour and can be harder to track down than errors in XML/XHTML.
Using an HTML4 validator or HTML5 conformance checker to ensure that the
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis skrev:
When I talked to WebKit developers about this, it seemed they considered
their support for real XHTML less reliable than their support for HTML
at that point. So while Safari's Accept header may be suboptimal,
there's nothing terribly wrong with interpreting it the
On Mar 7, 2007, at 7:09 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
...
Amen.
It's really amusing to see people continuing to trot out
matter-of-fact statements dismissing XHTML. Those statements seem
to fall into two basic types that can be paraphrased as either:
- The only people who author documents
Readers of this list may get a kick out of my latest developerWorks article:
Configure Apache to send the right MIME type for XHTML
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipapachexhtml/
As this list has flamed about repeatedly, XHTML documents are supposed
to be tagged as
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Interesting, but not of much use. If an author really wants to support MSIE, she needs to
not only ensure that MSIE tries to render the document at all by setting its MIME type to
text/html, but also to not use anything XHTML-specific that isn't possible in HTML,
On Mar 7, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Interesting, but not of much use. If an author really wants to
support MSIE, she needs to not only ensure that MSIE tries to
render the document at all by setting its MIME type to text/html,
but also to not use
Elliotte Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2007-03-07 09:12 -0500:
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Interesting, but not of much use. If an author really wants to support
MSIE, she needs to not only ensure that MSIE tries to render the document
at all by setting its MIME type to text/html, but also to
Alexey Feldgendler schrieb:
Interesting, but not of much use. If an author really wants to support MSIE, she needs to
not only ensure that MSIE tries to render the document at all by setting its MIME type to
text/html, but also to not use anything XHTML-specific that isn't possible in HTML,
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:27:23 +0100, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipapachexhtml/
This seems worse than
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html which was written
long ago. However, that article also has some
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Personally I'd just give everyone HTML unless they specifically ask for
XML and even then those tools should be capable of handling HTML imo.
After all, it's the exchange format of the web.
Personally I'm happy just sending XHTML as text/html and letting the
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
This seems worse than
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html which was written
long ago. However, that article also has some flaws in not taking into
account q values properly. Subsequent articles appeared on the web that
have addressed this problem.
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Personally I'd just give everyone HTML unless they specifically ask for
XML and even then those tools should be capable of handling HTML imo.
After all, it's the exchange format of the web.
HTML is the exchange format only when there's a human in the loop. HTML
is
Elliotte Harold wrote:
Indeed, if one were of a suspicious turn of mind, one might think the
insistence on sending XHTML as application/xhtml+xml were nothing but a
strategy to make XHTML so practically inconvenient that no one would
consider it.
I think I don't understand. The difficulty
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:13:42 +0100, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, if one were of a suspicious turn of mind, one might think the
insistence on sending XHTML as application/xhtml+xml were nothing but a
strategy to make XHTML so practically inconvenient that no one would
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:14:04 +0100, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems worse than
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html which was
written long ago. However, that article also has some flaws in not
taking into account q values properly. Subsequent articles
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:14:40 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting, but not of much use. If an author really wants to support MSIE,
she needs to not only
ensure that MSIE tries to render the document at all by setting its MIME
type to text/html, but also
to not use
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
How so?
Well, your article advocates sniffing specific user agents where the one
written by Mark Pilgrim uses the Accept: header which was actually
designed for this... Google, for one, is known for not supporting XHTML
really well.
I'm not doing content
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:20:29 +0100, Elliotte Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I'd just give everyone HTML unless they specifically ask for
XML and even then those tools should be capable of handling HTML imo.
After all, it's the exchange format of the web.
HTML is the exchange
On Thursday 2007-03-08 00:09 +0900, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
It's really amusing to see people continuing to trot out
matter-of-fact statements dismissing XHTML. Those statements seem
to fall into two basic types that can be paraphrased as either:
My dismissal doesn't fall into either of those
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
If you are going to write XHTML documents whose DOM is not representable in
HTML, then your documents won't be compatible with MSIE, and you won't need the
described MIME type trick.
OTOH, if you are going to restrict yourself to XHTML documents whose DOM is
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:14:25 +0100, Elliotte Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neither is really my point. The problem with malformed HTML is that it
has an inconsistent DOM. You get different DOMs in different browsers
and tools. Making a document well-formed XHTML gives you a consistent,
Henri Sivonen wrote:
TagSoup exists today.
Yes, and I use it. However it constantly surprises people in the markup
it generates, as hanging out for a day or two on the tagsoup-friends
mailing list will show. That's not it's fault. There's just no one
obvious way to fix all the broken
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:04:08 +0100, Elliotte Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, and I use it. However it constantly surprises people in the markup
it generates, as hanging out for a day or two on the tagsoup-friends
mailing list will show. That's not it's fault. There's just no one
obvious
On 7 Mar 2007, at 17:07, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
If you're after the fact that browsers don't sniff for XML in text/
html that's because the old HTML WG said so (there's a pointer
somewhere out there) and changing that now is impossible given how
many authors got XML as text/html
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:46:43 -, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How so?
Well, your article advocates sniffing specific user agents where the
one written by Mark Pilgrim uses the Accept: header which was actually
designed for this... Google, for one, is known for not
On Mar 7, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Personally I'd just give everyone HTML unless they specifically
ask for XML and even then those tools should be capable of
handling HTML imo. After all, it's the exchange format of the web.
Personally I'm happy
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:11:15 +0100, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
User-agent sniffing is a bad practice - it's inaccurate, hurts minority
browsers and is not forward-compatible. Please change your method to use
Accept header, so it won't be affecting any HTML-only user-agents
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:52:08 -, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even your regular expressions for User-Agent aren't doing exactly what
you intended, because mod_rewrite does not anchor patterns.
While I totally agree that browser sniffing isn't a way to go, I must
say
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
While I totally agree that browser sniffing isn't a way to go, I must say
that Accept headers cannot be used to resolve this because MSIE claims to
support */* in the Accept header that it sends.
That's not really true. See:
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
While I totally agree that browser sniffing isn't a way to go, I must say
that Accept headers cannot be used to resolve this because MSIE claims to
support */* in the Accept header that it sends.
That's not really true. See:
Elliotte Harold wrote:
Problem is safari will handle application/xhtml+xml but seems to be
sending */* so the claim that we should only send application/xhtml+xml
to browsers that explicitly request that type is problematic.
When I talked to WebKit developers about this, it seemed they
Hi David,
Or export them to PDF via PrinceXML, for example. The ability to mark up
content once but publish it twice, in a usable, attractive format both
for the web and for print, gives XHTML tremendous practical value for
web publishers. It isn't just theoretical or fashionable anymore.
38 matches
Mail list logo
