Victor Engmark wrote:
> 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 ..."
Again, many of the benefits are for the developers, and this is easily fixed:
if (isset($_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"])) {
if (stristr($_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"],"application/xhtml+xml")) {
header("content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8");
}
}
"scripting will not work when sent as application/xhtml+XML"
That's bull. I'm using DOM compliant _javascript_ which works in IE, Firefox, and Opera on my own site, which is served as valid XHTML 1.1 with MIME type application/xhtml+xml to all browsers which understand it, and as text/html to others.
"My personal opinion is that the most important thing is that you choose a
strict doctype, be it _HTML_ or XHTML.
XHTML is more strict than HTML. In any case, using a single sentence in one article as the basis for a decision is a bit quick, that's why I also mentioned the other articles and benefits.
> 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.
The fact that that particular point is not entirely complete (you need 4 lines of PHP to make it work on IE) doesn't invalidate the other points, nor does it invalidate the objective of that point. It is accessible to visual, braille, audio, and handheld browsers.
For these 55 reasons, some are obvious or irrelevant.
If you insist, I propose try XHTML in a CVS branch.