|
|
Posted by Lauri Raittila on 06/19/05 13:55
in alt.html, Ashmodai wrote:
> Andy Dingley scribbled something along the lines of:
> > Secondly educate them on why Bobby is so broken as to be barely useful
> > as a measure of accessibility.
Does it still exist? I though it was replaced some gimmick that works
even worse. I evaluated my homepage twice, and got different results. It
is static page... (and it expires my sessions within 2 seconds, so I
never actually see what warnings are...)
> > Mainly though, I'd ditch 1.1 in favour of 1.0 strict.
> I wouldn't say XHTML 1.1 is harmful, IF the browser is capable of
> processing the right MIME type.
Well, as such situation is rare, and as even more rare is that support is
as good as XHTML1.0 as text/html, let alone real HTML4, I would think it
is harmful.
> If you want to stick to XHTML 1.1 (with an XHTML MIME type, i.e.
> application/xhtml+xml), and sending a HTML 4.01 Strict representation --
> which is easily possible with server-side scripting -- if
> the MIME type is not (explicitly) supported.
Do this so that you serve html4 strict by default with text/html, and
XHTML1.1 with application/xhtml+xml only if text/html is not
accepted[1], and I agree. Of course, atm latter is futile, but if you
already have it, it won't need much altering.
[1] You could be also trust browser if it says that it supports
application/xml+xhml better (using q values), but FF does that, and afaik
still doesn't have incremental rendering for it...
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:
https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/buy-opera.html?AID=882173
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|