Posted by Bone Ur on 11/04/07 17:19

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:50:46
GMT 1001 Webs scribed:

>> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is
>> more highly recommended than HTML 4.01.
> <snip>
> *In the rest of this tutorial we will assume that you are serving
> pages to be rendered in standards mode by relatively up-to-date user
> agents.
> * We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible; and if you
> serve XHTML as text/html we assume that you are conforming to the
> compatibility guidelines in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification.
> * We recognize that XHTML served as XML is still not widely
> supported, and that therefore many XHTML 1.0 pages will be served as
> text/html.
> * We assume that, because of its tendency to cause Internet
> Explorer 6 to render in quirks mode, some people prefer not to use the
> XML declaration for XHTML served as text/html.
> * XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/

Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a restriction
rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed to make things work
better, which they may do about half the time - maybe. From what I recall,
one cannot use the javascript method "document.write" in xhtml and you have
to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element terminators.
Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
unclosed elements.

But, er, why? Is it impossible to make an xhtml parser without the need
for such jerkocity? Well, if it isn't, I sincerely doubt that xhtml (at
least) is the future of the Web. And btw, the w3c recommendations aren't
sacrosanct. Quite the opposite at times.

--
Bone Ur

When I was a young man I learned that having sex with a woman is fun until
you either get caught or married.

[Back to original message]