You can still do that with XHTML 1.0 sent as html/text. I've done that
several times when I've made desktop gadgets to extract data from my site.
The parsers doesn't care if the page is sent as html/text instead of
xml/text.
I don't see any point of using XHTML 1.1 unless you use it's modular nature.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vlad Alexander (XStandard)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 & CSS3 - Is it worth using right now?
HTH wrote:
...server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means
you're generating two copies of all of your content
Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to generate one
copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any version of HTML
as you like.
HTH wrote:
Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to
get done correctly
At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see:
http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/
Simon wrote:
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1 and does it provide any benefits?
The benefits are on the content production side. If you author your content
in XHTML, you can parse it with an off-the-shelf XML parser and make
modifications to your content en-masse. This gives you control over your
content.
Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com
XStandard XHTML (Strict or 1.1) WYSIWYG Editor
-------- Original Message --------
From: Nikita The Spider The Spider
Date: 2008-05-12 8:36 PM
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone use XHTML 1.1
Of the doctypes that my validator Nikita saw in one sample period,
just slightly over 2% were XHTML 1.1. It's worth noting that most, if
not all, were sent with the wrong media type.
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/articles/ByTheNumbers/#doctypes
and does it provide any benefits?
Well, compared to what? HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Transitional or
XHTML 1.0 Strict?
Is there a reason why not many sites adopt this Doctype and is there any
point using right now if your site is 1.0 Strict?
One big impediment to using XHTML 1.1 is that it must be sent with the
application/xhtml+xml media type which makes IE6 choke. That implies
that the server has to do content negotiation in order to send
text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and
application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means you're
generating two copies of all of your content unless you're willing to
refuse IE users. Does this sound appealing yet?
Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to get done
correctly, even ignoring the cost of generating both two versions of
one's content.
Given the extra work required to support XHTML 1.1, there would have
to be some pretty darn compelling reasons to use it, and those reasons
just aren't there for most people. There's quite enough people who
question the use of XHTML 1.0 over HTML (I'm one of them), let alone
XHTML 1.1.
About XHTML and media types:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary
HTH
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
