Alan wrote: [quote] That might not be a valid argument but that was not Ian's argument. [/quote]
Hey Alan, I think it is. Here are the 6 points Ian makes to explain why he thinks using text/html for XHTML is bad. My interpretation follows each point. [source: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml] [Ian] 1. Authors write XHTML that makes assumptions that are only valid for tag soup or HTML4 UAs, and not XHTML UAs, and send it as text/html. [Vlad] Author writes bad XHTML. [Ian] 2. Authors find everything works fine. [Vlad] Author does not know it's bad XHTML. [Ian] 3. Time passes. [Vlad] tick, tick, tick ... [Ian] 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, because it is, after all, XHTML. [Vlad] Author wants to learn more about XHTML. [Ian] 5. Author finds site breaks horribly. [Vlad] Hmmm... [Ian] 6. Author blames XHTML. [Vlad] It's not my fault - it must be that evil XHTML. So, I think my interpretation if Ian's argument is correct. I think arguments like this don't help Web standards. And articles with sensational headlines like "XHTML is dead" is irresponsible and fear mongering. This is a critical time for Web standards because Web standards are on the verge of becoming mainstream. Software vendors are thinking about making their products/tools standards-compliant, thanks in part to the efforts of WSG members. Don't let your efforts be undermined. Let's keep our eyes on the prize. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor Alan Trick wrote: > Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: > > >>Russ wrote: >>[quote] >>At the risk of being burned at the stake, I think that unless you are willing >>to serve your pages as application/xhtml+xml with content negotiation, then >>you are probably better off staying with HTML 4.01 at this time. >>[/quote] >> >>Let me be the first to gather the kindling :-) >> >>The whole MIME debate started with Ian Hickson. Let me summarize his >>argument: If you author bad XHTML and serve it up as HTML, you won't know >>that you have invalid XHTML and you will blame XHTML when you find out. >>Sorry, this is not a valid argument. This is fear mongering. >> >> > > That might not be a valid argument but that was not Ian's argument (if I > remember it properly). Here's what I think he was saying > > 1) the whole point of XHTML, is that it is xml and that it requires > well-formedness > 2) if you do not server application/xhtml-xml you don't gain that an you > may as well be using HTML 4.01 > 3) additionally, sending XHTML with an HTML mime type is against > standards, just as much as having a & instead of & > 4) because it is against standards, you can't expect standard behaviour > from browsers. In reality they should all be putting a > after your > <br/>'s and <input/>'s and such (but only a one or two browsers actually > implement that). I know the PHP DOM parser screws up when you give it a > text/html file with an xhtml namespace. > > For all intensive purposes, you file will just be an oddly written html > file with an incorrect namespace and incorrect dtd. The only time I find > this is useful is when your sending content to a UA that does not > support application/xhtml-xml and you don't want to rewrite your > document for that. > > Alan Trick > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** > > ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
