|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 04/18/07 08:06
Scripsit Benjamin Niemann:
> You're certainly right that the usage of a XHTML DOCTYPE does not
> imply that the document is actually XHTML. But it does say something
> about the intentions of the document author.
Does it? It might be simply copied from somewhere. It probably is. Whether
the author has an idea of what it means remains to be seen.
Besides, intentions as such don't mean much.
> Unless the OP gives us a
> detailed and unambiguous definition of "XHTML usage", I would say
> that a document which the author wants to be XHTML (but often fails
> to implemented even remotely correct) is XHTMLish enough to fit the
> (guessed) definition.
I don't try to make such guesses, and the OP apparently has a vague idea
that is assumed to relate to whether XHTML is fashionable or not.
If a document has an XHTML DOCTYPE and it is in fact not syntactically
XHTML, then it's not XHTML at all for any reasonable purpose. The very point
of X in XHTML is to play by XML rules, and they include the principle (to
put it somewhat roughly) that a document shall not be displayed - instead,
_an_ error message is to be shown - if there is the slightest deviation from
general XML rules ("well-formedness" rules). Along the same lines, a
document purported to be XHTML should be treated in a similar manner if it
violates any of the syntax rules in the DTD.
What might possibly be the reason for and benefit from using XHTML syntax,
as opposite to HTML 4.01 syntax, if XHTML syntax is not used? Using a little
bit of XHTML syntax here and there might be common, but this doesn't make it
any less foolish.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|