On 12/5/06, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - XHTML is the current recommendation of the W3C and they consider it an > evolution of HTML. This has a strong weight on our project since we are > commited to public standards. Well then.. why not use XForms? And XPath/XSLT? They're all W3C recommendations with similar support to XHTML in IE.
> - Microsoft has got time and resources to make IE compatible to XHTML and in > fact it seems the support is there, only buried. They will have a reason for > that, as they have reasons not to follow other standards. The reason is > their political agenda, this agenda tries to fight... us. Well, I really don't see a political agenda here. From what I've seen, they simply don't have the rendering engine to support XHTML yet, and they don't want to fall into the same "backwards-compatibility" trap as they did with HTML. I'm also assuming that they wanted to concentrate primarily on UI/security and minor CSS improvements in IE7 (much to our disappointment). I know that the "oppose the big guy" argument may seem strong, but I really don't blame the IE people for that particular decision, as it works out much better in the long run. As I've stated repeatedly (I really want to see how this issue can just be ignored), we won't really be giving browsers XHTML, as both IE and XHTML-supporting browsers will parse it as malformed HTML when it's text/html (XHTML-supporting browsers will use XHTML if it is sent with the correct mimetype). Ricky _______________________________________________ gnome-web-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list
