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

["Ricky Zhou" <ricky zhou gmail com>]

On 12/5/06, Quim Gil <quimgil gmail com> wrote:
> Question for an ignorant: would it be feasible / difficult to serve XHTML to
> browsers supporting it and then offer an alternative HTML encoding to thos
> not supporting it? Is it worth all this effort?
Well, second from using HTML all the way, I'd probably agree with this
approach, as it would at least award users of more mordern
standards-complaint browsers.  Honestly, I don't really care much
about IE as long as they can see the page.  My main concern in
starting this is that there is absolutely no benefit at all when it's
served as text/html to browsers that can support it.

If we're really that stuck on using XHTML, I wouldn't mind sending
XHTML as text/html just for IE and letting better browsers (see
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/results) take
advantage of better/faster rendering, etc. by using
application/xhtml+xml.

Although this would be a bit more complicated than the all-HTML
option, it's just a simple rewrite rule in Apache, so hopefully, Zope
can handle it easily too.

Thanks,
Ricky