> Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-11-25 20:24: > Another concern about the *HTML* encoding to be used in wgo: > > RickyZhou says at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/WebPolicies > > "It isn't practical to require XHTML, since it would have to be sent as > text/html to support IE. In doing so, it becomes impossible to take > advantage of its features, as all browsers would simply render it as > malformed HTML. Overall, I recommend HTML 4.01 Strict for maximal > support. Some links that explain this debate in more detail: > http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml and > http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/sep2003/ "
We are not the first project to adapt the "new" xhtml standard, and Curtis and Christian have already elaborated on some of the most important parts, but I have some more general comments on the articles: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml complains a lot about authors not knowing what they are doing. This is not relevant since we know more than the average xhtml author out there on how to make standard compliant web pages. And the tools we choose, or already have chosen, also makes standard compliant web pages. I was surprised about browsers not being xhtml user agents (yet?). However, these arguments should not make us write old style web pages instead of following a standard that browsers potentially may follow later. The conclusion in the webkit blog (from this year), linked in from the top of hixie-xhtml article: http://webkit.org/blog/?p=68 says that most of the time, the difference does not matter, but sometimes it does, and it want us to make sure we know the difference. This discussion and the articles and blogs have given us (at least me) more insight on the potential problems. Sigurd Gartmann _______________________________________________ gnome-web-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list
