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

[Ricky Zhou <ricky zhou gmail com>]

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

Alexander Limi wrote:
> Bullsh*t. No browsers have a problem with XHTML, not even Netscape 4.
> We have used and supported XHTML with Plone for over 5 years, and have
> never run into any trouble with it (and have lots of upsides wrt.
> parsing and handling).
As I've mentioned in other messages, such "XHTML" is actually parsed as
invalid HTML.  In order to be interpreted properly, XHTML must be sent
as application/xhtml+xml, which breaks in IE.  You can output all the
XHTML you want, but if you send it as HTML, it's accomplishes nothing.

> In any case, I don't have time for discussions like this, I just
> wanted to state why I think this discussion is pointless and just
> sucks time that could be spent on useful efforts.
Then don't reply without reading the points that have already been
discussed.  Through previous posts, it has been established that XHTML
sent as text/html is treated as malformed HTML (and hence doesn't give
any of XHTML's benefits/features).

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

iD8DBQFFdQ0EiXbZ7NjlUcARAuH7AKCJT+L5EJCvIvDUPf5IDHAvGBkxswCgohiG
W4E/3RUwfxHKo02ARQdH0os=
=kyKn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----