Re: [wgo] XHTML1.0 Strict vs HTML 4.01

[Ricky Zhou <ricky zhou gmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sigurd Gartmann wrote:
> I was surprised about browsers not being xhtml user agents
> (yet?). However, these arguments should not make us write old
> style web pages instead of following a standard that browsers
> potentially may follow later.

Perhaps it would be clearer to put it this way:
We cannot use XHTML.

We simply can't.  No matter what DOCTYPE, syntax, or validation we
follow, we will be giving browsers invalid HTML if we use text/html (as
is necessary to support any version of IE).

> The conclusion in the webkit blog (from this year), linked in from
> the top of hixie-xhtml article: http://webkit.org/blog/?p=68 says
> that most of the time, the difference does not matter, but sometimes
> it does, and it want us to make sure we know the difference.

If you look at the rest of the article, it's strongly indicated that
HTML is the recommendation.

See these sections in the webkit post:
* What determines if my document is HTML or XHTML?
* HTML is probably what you want
* Best practices

Thanks,
Ricky
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFdMSbiXbZ7NjlUcARAlK9AKCUWazvDTgjYwToejklBqf9VnQeZQCePoZj
TWaXTlL5iywPmuPGfBBoG+Q=
=FalG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----