On 9/11/05, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even uses >> the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's hard to >> see why it should be considered a bad thing. > > Here is the article: > http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
I prefer standards over opinions: <quote> 5.1. Internet Media Type XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C, "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML browsers. Those documents, and any other document conforming to this specification, may also be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. (..) </quote> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ So just follow the compatibility guidelines (we want people to be able to read the FAQ anyway) and use text/html. Jochem ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
