Posted by Andy Dingley on 01/13/06 17:06

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:12:32 +0000, Marc <mbradshaw@beasolutions.com>
wrote:

First of all, read Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 spec, and search
c.i.w.a.h for past comments on it.

There are two ways to serve XHTML 1.0, labelled as XML or labelled as
HTML. Almost nothing processes it as XML (usefully), many browsers will
actually have a real problem with it labelled as XML. If it's labelled
as HTML, then current, old and future browsers just chow down on it
quite happily, in the way they've always done. Appendix C describes the
compatibility issues for how to serve XHTML 1.0 as text/html.

It's not permitted to pull this same trick with XHTML 1.1 - that's
enough reason not to use it.

>How does deciding not to support that doctype in IE7 make XHTML
>'successful in the long run'? I don't follow...

Media type, not doctype. IE7 works fine with Appendix C XHTML.

There's no need to support XHTML (as XML) in IE7. There's almost none
of this out on the web in a valid form, and there's no need for it, as
Appendix C will cover things perfectly well.

A badly implemented pure-XML processing version of XHTML would give
_XHTML_ a bad name for IEn+1's bugs. This would set back any real useful
adoption of XHTML as XML.

IE 7 is a minor hack for a new Windows platform, so as to gain tabbed
browsing to fool the gullible. It doesn't even fix the gross CSS bugs
that it really ought to. It's certainly not a likely candidate for a
major shift in architecture, in any successful manner.

If XHTML as XML ever happens (and I hope it won;t be 2.0) then IMHO
it'll come from the mobile devices marketplace pushing their technology
back to the desktop.

[Back to original message]