In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would be *very* hesitent about helping out knowing that bad html was
> going live.
I agree that we should work towards making the pages compliant and not
tolerate the creation of new non-compliant pages on www.mozilla.org.
> The only problem is deciding which standards to adhere to, not in terms
> of XML or this or that, but what versions. I could suggest using just
> HTML 4.01 and CSS 2, but why not go for XHTML and CSS 2 now?
I think serving XHTML to Mozilla as text/html makes no sense unless you
are using a tool that only outputs XHTML. (This is not the case with
Editor or text editor.) XHTML served to Mozilla as text/html offers no
benefit over HTML 4.01. The benefits come when XHTML is served as
text/xml and combined with other applications of XML.
I don't think we should set an example by serving XHTML as text/html. In
that case the browser doesn't enforce well-formedness. I don't think we
want the risk of accidentally ending up with non-well-formed sorta-XHTML
legacy to deal with.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
