|
|
Posted by cwdjrxyz on 01/23/06 05:35
John Salerno wrote:
> cwdjrxyz wrote:
>
> > You are quite right that many are against using XHTML at all. I am not
> > one of these and now write and serve most new pages as true xhtml 1.1
> > to browsers that will accept it and as html 4.01 strict to IE6 and
> > other browsers that do not say they will accept the mime type
> > application/xhtml+xml in the header exchange.
>
> But is this an issue if you use XHTML 1.0 instead?
So far as I know you are not using true XHTML unless you serve as
application/xhtml+xml, even for the most loose form which is XHTML 1.0
transitional. However, as I said in a previous post, many XHTML pages
served incorrectly as application/html often will work. The only thing
I can see you might gain by serving XHTML as HTML would be if you
intended to serve the pages correctly soon when you get a new host or
something of the sort. But this need be no great problem. There are
programs out there that will automatically convert a proper HTML 4.01
strict page to XHTML. Sometimes you have to touch the conversion up a
bit. But for not-so-simple pages loaded with script, etc you may have
much more work to do if you use any version of XHTML.
There are several who sometimes post in this group who are very anti
XHTML and who have long pages describing why. If any happen to read
this page, they likely will be more than happy to give you the URL of
one of their pages.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|