gnuherds-app-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS -- Later XHTML if convenient?


From: Davi Leal
Subject: Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS -- Later XHTML if convenient?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:26:15 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

Victor Engmark wrote:
> So there's three major open source organizations which use XHTML, but none
> of them know what they're doing, because "XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 do not provide
> benefits"? There are many other arguments for and against XHTML on other
> sites:

I repeat again:
  "XHTML benefits?. Actually none of those benefits make particular sense. 
XHTML is no more accessible than well written HTML. Most mobile devices can 
handle HTML just fine. Again good HTML is as logical and structural as XHTML.  
Admittedly the XHTML might have merit, but only if you're considering 
embedding other XML directly in the markup such as SVG or MathML, but most 
browsers do not support that!."


> HTML or XHTML? http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/11/02/html-or-xhtml/

Victor, I am just quoting your article:

"Strict or Transitional?. Definitely strict."

"‘application/xhtml+XML’ SHOULD be used for serving XHTML documents to XHTML 
user agents."
"Which means that web browsers will not render your pages as XHTML, but rather 
as HTML ..."

"scripting will not work when sent as application/xhtml+XML"

"My personal opinion is that the most important thing is that you choose a 
strict doctype, be it _HTML_ or XHTML.

  *** WWWarning:::

  If you want to use XHTML and serve it as text/html, make sure that you don’t 
intentionally have code that would break when served as 
application/xhtml+XML. .. and go the extra mile to make sure it is indeed 
well-formed."


> Retrofit your Web pages for wireless compatibility
> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/wireless/library/wi-css/

Replied on the other email.


> 55 Reasons to Design in XHTML/CSS http://www.khmerang.com/index.php?p=106
[...]
> 21. # Your sites are automatically accessible to all kinds of browsers

This 21 point is false as stated above by the WWWarning of the article _you_ 
has quoted in your previous reply.

For these 55 reasons, some are obvious or irrelevant.


If you insist, I propose try XHTML in a CVS branch.

Davi




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]