Posted by Rik on 11/08/53 11:49

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Rik wrote:
>
>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml;
>> charset=ISO-8859-1" />
>
> Complete nonsense, I'm afraid.
>
>> Hmmmmz, not sure wether the choice "application/xhtml+xml" was
>> appropriate, but I've forgotten the exact rules :-).
>
> There's no extra charge for checking the specifications before
> making oneself look silly, you know. (Been there, done that...)

I was trying to post a few usefull comments in a minimal amount of time, but
OK, here it is.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/xhtml-media-types.xhtml#media-types

While the content type IS application/xhtml+xml, you COULD use text/html,
for a good reason:

text/html:
Appendix C "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" summarizes "design guidelines for
authors who wish their XHTML documents to render on existing HTML user
agents". The use of 'text/html' for XHTML SHOULD be limited for the purpose
of rendering on existing HTML user agents, and SHOULD be limited to [XHTML1]
documents which follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines. In particular,
'text/html' is NOT suitable for XHTML Family document types that adds
elements and attributes from foreign namespaces, such as XHTML+MathML
[XHTML+MathML].

That was the nagging in the back of my head. And now I will further prove to
you I'm lazy: I will NOT investigate which browsers are XHTML compliant, and
which aren't.

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus

• Next in forum: Re: Really stupid newb question- <div>
• Prev in forum: Re: Using Word as an HTML editor
• Thread view: Re: Feedback appreciated for a new design I am working on.

[Reply to this message]