HTML vs XHTML

[Davi Leal]

gnu.org   uses    XHTML 1.0 Strict
fsf.org   uses    XHTML 1.0 Transitional  (Plone)
fsfe.org  uses    XHTML 1.0 Transitional  (eZ Publish)


IE6 does not support application/xhtml+xml  in fact it does not support XHTML 
at all. XHTML is planned for IE8.

fsf.org "works" on IE6 because of they send XHTML with a content-type 
of "text/html".  Sending XHTML that way means you get none of the XML-related 
benefits due to browsers use the HTML parser -- It is written with XHTML but 
actually working as HTML.

Sending a content-type of application/xhtml+xml means that 80% of todays 
browsers will prompt you to download the document instead of attempting to 
render it.  It does not look like the browser market can handle 
application/xhtml+xml yet.

XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 do not provide benefits. So, I propose stay with  HTML 4.01 
Transitional  and cancel the XHTML tasks. David, what do you think?. It seems 
it would be a lot of work to no benefit.

Reference: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml