David Dorward wrote: > Nutshell version: > > (a) XHTML as text/html depends on browsers implementing HTML > incorrectly (the prime example being what <br />, <img /> etc mean in > HTML as opposed to XHTML) > > (b) XHTML as text/html throws away every advantage that XHTML has > over HTML ...
> It just goes to show how easy it is to implement XHTML badly. The advantage of XHTML over HTML is non-existent today if one wants it to work across browser-land, and this will be a fact for a long time to come AFAIK. Guess that's what Richard Ishida meant by referring to the "ideal world" vs. the "real world". We've been through that before. Ok, I live in the real world, and it's full of broken browsers. However, XHTML allow me to use valid code to achieve results in broken browsers, that are not guaranteed (although might be possible) with HTML. An xml-declaration is valid in XHTML, so I put IE6 in quirks mode to fix a few bugs and simplify my *CSS-corrections* for it. Along comes IE7 tomorrow-- probably with its own bugs, and every single *CSS-correction* for earlier versions is out of the way because of that example of what might be called "badly implemented XHTML". My strategy is to keep XHTML served as 'application/xhtml+xml' on hold until all major browsers support it, and use valid XHTML served as 'text/html' in the mean time. That will let me apply CSS the way and as valid as I want it, and leave the buggy part of the equation to browser-vendors. I didn't create the browser-mess, and I can't solve it. Maybe it isn't proper, but it is valid and W3C encourage such a practice - at least the way I read both the validator and what's written on the W3C site. --- I know it is a working draft, but when R.I. on W3C write: "Indeed we encourage the use of XHTML, and all the examples (unless trying to make a specific point about HTML 4.01) are written in XHTML." ...then that's bad and should be disregarded? And the same when he say (on the same page): "Note that XHTML source can be served as XML (using MIME types application/xhtml+xml, application/xml or text/xml) or HTML (using the MIME type text/html)." ? <http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-char/#ri20030912.143319987> And nothing of this matters: <http://dev.l-c-n.com/disp-table/html-table401.php> <http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/en/slides/Slide0210.html> (?) Are you aware of updated versions, or should we just disregard what we read about the whole issue on the W3C site? Is it all "deprecated" ? Would be nice to know. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
