|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 02/05/06 11:16
With neither quill nor qualm, John Salerno quothed:
> What exactly does this mean:
>
> "Document sent as text/html are handled as tag soup [1] by most UAs.
> This means that authors are not checking for validity, and thus
> most XHTML documents on the web now are invalid. Therefore the main
> advantage of using XHTML, that it has to be valid, is lost of the
> document is then sent as text/html."
>
> To me it sounds like he is saying that *any* document written in XHTML
> and then served as text/html is invalid. But is that really the case? Or
> is he saying that the document *could* be invalid because it could still
> be prone to the methods of HTML (e.g., no closing tags, etc.)?
>
> I assume if you validate your XHTML, then simply serving it as text/html
> doesn't harm it, right? It doesn't suddenly make it "invalid," does it?
> (Perhaps in a strict sense it does, because it's not truly XHTML, but as
> far as the actually words in the document themselves, they are still
> valid, right? And if it was then served as application/xhtml-xml, it
> would be valid, correct?)
Using xhtml "today" without a special and rather esoteric need for it is
just plain silly. There's nothing profound about the format or markup,
nothing really to be learned by doing xhtml pages except the most
simplistic tactical techniques one could imagine. Perhaps someday when
the so-called experts figure out what they're supposed to be doing and
are actually able to do it, this will change, but that day is not going
to be soon. Far better a valid and structurally-correct html-strict
opus than anything in xhtml at all.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|