|
|
Posted by Spartanicus on 07/09/05 12:29
Mark <mark@manngo.net.example.net> wrote:
>Sorry Spartanicus. I didn't realise there were people left who were
>trying to hold the web back.
Expressions of sentiment are generally devoid of arguments, the above is
no exception.
>>>Migrating to XHTML
>> Why?
>
>Why not? XHTML has a number of benefits both now and in the future which
>I would like to exploit
A statement devoid of an argument.
>>>XHTML has been emabled in virtually all modern browsers.
>> IE (all versions) and (afaik) KHTML browsers (Safari, Konquerer) don't
>> support XHTML. But perhaps you are referring to the hack whereby XHTML
>> code is incorrectly served as text/html thereby causing it to be treated
>> as tag soup by browsers?
>
>Sorry, tag soup is not a term I use a lot, so I'm not sure how to
>interpret this comment.
The web lies at your fingertips filled with information, use it.
>I agree that the way pages are served as text/html rather
>application/xhtml+xml is an issue non-Mozilla browsers.
I can't parse that statement. It seems that you think that Mozilla is
the only application capable of handling application/xhtml+xml, this is
nonsense. And it suggests that there are no issues with serving Mozilla
application/xhtml+xml, again not correct.
>However, this
>does stop you from attaching appropriate DOCTYPEs, and validating it as
>such.
Parsing error again, even if I fill in the assumed missing [not].
>It also doesn't stop them from interpreting XHTML tag formats,
>which as I recall was the original question.
Browsers don't "interpret" XHTML, they parse it as tag soup if you serve
it as text/html, and afaik in the case of KHTML browsers even if you
serve it as application/xhtml+xml.
>> Check out the common myths that surround XHTML and the problems that
>> arise from using it: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
>
>I have. Than you. I see a few problems with the artical, though:
>
>XHTML is stricter than HTML, especially if you have to resort to custom
>DTDs to achieve the same.
That's one of the common myths bandied about, it's based on a flawed
understanding and/or goal, it's addressed and dispelled by the article.
>Certainly it less forgiving from an XML point of view.
Irrelevant since you are serving it as text/html. The myth that well
formdness is has significance other than as a technical requirement that
stems from the way *proper* X(HT)ML is parsed is again dealt with and
dispelled by the article.
>W3C, from my reading, regards XHTML as the next version from HTML 4, and
>has based the development of future technologies on the XML base on
>which XHTML rests.
XHTML 1.x is a reformulation of HTML 4 in XML. XHTML 2 is the intended
successor to XHTML 1.x. HTML 5 is the intended successor to HTML 4.x.
Neither are likely to be backward compatible with HTML4 (or it's
reformulation in XHTML).
>This includes MathML, SVG, and XForms, which, though
>not currently widely supported, will certaily offer benefits to the Web.
Mixed namespace documents are not an option when serving as text/html.
>I don't see how steering people away from XHTML is in any way going to
>help in this regard.
It helps because it reflects the reality that application/xhtml+xml is
not supported by clients that will be around for a long time, and
because serving application/xhtml+xml to Mozilla causes a nasty problem.
>Actually, I don't know how easy it is to generat HTML from XML.
Search and yee shall find.
--
Spartanicus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|