On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:02:13 +0100, L. David Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Do you mean it was a mistake that the WG said no to content sniffing or
a mistake that it wasn't stated in XHTML 1.0?
I mean it was a mistake that the WG said no to content sniffing. (I
would have preferred to do it based on the presence of the XML
declaration, "<?xml ... ?>".)
In particular, content sniffing would have allowed migration to XHTML
without waiting for the vast majority of browsers to support it.
I think I disagree with that actually. Consider the following scenario:
1. Standards guy writes a tutorial on how to do things the new way;
2. Developer, using IE mostly, reads the tutorial;
3. The developer writes a simple document and publishes it:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/";>
<head>
...
</head>
<body>
...
</html>
4. Renders in IE;
5. "XML parsing failed: syntax error (Line: 8, Character: 0)" in Opera;
6. Customers complain;
7. Result is that we end up where we are now.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
