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

["Thilo Pfennig" <tpfennig gmail com>]

2006/12/5, Ricky Zhou <ricky zhou gmail com>:
> First: Can anybody please address the point that it's not XHTML if
> it's sent as HTML?

The 'text/html' media type [RFC2854] is primarily for HTML, not for
XHTML. In general, this media type is NOT suitable for XHTML. However,
as [RFC2854] says, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is
compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.
Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/xhtml-media-types.html#text-html

I do not agree on the view oft the importance of the mime type,
though. Especially because what mime type is sent depends rather on
the configuration of the web server and not on the content of a
document. The validity depends more on formal criterias on meeting a
DTD or schema. AND we are used to having to deal with weirdnesses of
the internet. The thing is that realworld HTML should have never got
so popular, because it really has made things complicated. So my view
is that it is ok to tweak things to come out of  this mess. Maybe IE
15.0 will support real XHTML in the future ;-)

> Everybody's saying that XHTML is good enough, but why isn't HTML good
> enough?  When XHTML is supported, we can move to that easily, but
> until then, I'd stick with HTML.

Well, your question really is about dumping XHTML for use in the internet.

And I also have a bad feeling if I see us waiting on Microsoft to
support our website. IMHO we should try to do this with XHTML and
supported as good in IE as it makes sense.

Thilo


--
Blog: http://vinci.wordpress.com
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tpfennig