-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Curtis Hovey wrote: > I have been working with these issues for a few years now. The points > brought up are obscure an should not stop us from authoring to the > standard that will be 7 years old in a few weeks. Trust me, IE support is *not* obscure. Despite having over 6 years to implement this, neither IE6 or IE7 support XHTML served with the correct mimetype. > These are issues that > need to be addressed from time to time, but will no affect the day to > day operation of the site. Microsoft is phasing out IE 6 and XHTML is > not going away. We must be mindful of current issues faced with > browsers, screen sizes, and the like and design for them, or design for > graceful degradation. As stated, IE7 doesn't support XHTML either. Browser/screen sizes are pretty irrelevant for this argument (HTML can do this), and I don't see "rendering as tag soup with no XHTML features" as a form of graceful degradation for XHTML. > Send the pages with the mime-type text/html (as is common practice) to > get the most from the current browser population. You mean render it with absolutely none of the benefits of XHTML? > We can choose to send > application/xhtml+xml to browsers that we recognize AND we believe will > provide compelling features when our content is interpreted as modern. I > am not aware of any compelling features in Gecko or KHTML enable with > application/xhtml+xml. Why not use HTML 4.01 strict if no XHTML features are necessary? > The markup argument is disputable. The points on standards are correct, > but the topic is about IE's non-standard compliance. The issue we face > is how IE choose to interpret markup. IE reads the DOCTYPE to choose the > rendering engine. It chooses the small, fast trident engine for XHTML, > if there is an error, it fails over to the old, large, and slow IE 4/IE > 5 engine. Valid markup displays faster. Since IE is switching the > engines used to render, it is also switching the models (MSDOM). > Regardless of source markup, script and CSS rules are applied to the > active model. So long as IE is using the model you intend, there is no > issue...reason enough to avoid errors in your markup. I don't understand this argument at all, since the rendering engine has been called Trident since IE4. If you read the relevant IEBlog post (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx), it seems to indicate that no rendering engine switching occurs, which was the impression that I was under.
I really didn't expect a response to the sources that I posted here. The real "core of my argument" is that we can't get/don't need any of XHTML's features, so HTML is the best choice. It's a perfectly good standard that does exactly what we need in a well-supported way. Analyzing the benefits/problems with each solution, I don't see any benefits for XHTML, but I do see a host of possible problems/issues that simply don't need to be dealt with in HTML. In conclusion, I would like to see an answer to the following questions before even considering XHTML: * Why doesn't HTML fulfill our requirements? * why is XHTML better than HTML for this project? Ricky -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFc1d1iXbZ7NjlUcARAv3IAKDagEjU99vZpqzRZe9/01tFUJUCoQCgkcVg cxWkiHY/ws+VnNxhq11QG7o= =9RNd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ gnome-web-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list
