On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 04:21:59PM +0100, Quim Gil wrote: > Question for an ignorant: would it be feasible / difficult to serve XHTML to > browsers supporting it and then offer an alternative HTML encoding to thos > not supporting it? Is it worth all this effort?
This should not be difficult, however I do not suggest doing this. As far as I know, Gecko does not yet support incremental page loading for XHTML (meaning: when served correctly), while it does for HTML. This has probably has been said before, but you cannot just serve XHTML as text/html and expect everything to go right. Reference: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151506#c5 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines I saw those more often when triaging Mozilla bugs. Short description for people not wanting to click: <script src="foo.js" ... /> is not valid as text/html (Gecko parser will not see the tag has been closed), while it would be under application/xhtml+xml. -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ gnome-web-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list
