In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Henno Buschmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought that they are forward-looking and use XHTML, but its a bad
Do you mean XHTML served as text/html or XHTML served as
application/xhtml+xml if the UA accepts it and otherwise as text/html?
If the former:
What would be the point? What advantage over valid HTML 4.01 would there
be? The docs at www.mozilla.org aren't preprocessed with XML tools.
If the latter:
What would be the point? Some future hand-held devices might like it
(but we don't know for sure, yet, so using a new format too early might
cause compatibility problems!) and Mozilla might do the parsing a bit
faster.
I agree that the it is a shame that there are invalid docs at
mozilla.org.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
