Posted by Stan McCann on 01/24/06 02:01

David Dorward <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:dr2393$2o5$2$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk:

> John Salerno 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?
>
> XHTML 1.0 has Appendix C which includes some rules to make it
> "compatible" with HTML, and if you follow those rules the you are
> allowed to serve it as text/html.
>
> The main problems are that there is a lack of tools on the market
> for testing Appendix C conformance, that its too easy to do silly
> things like comment out a style sheet (thanks to differences between
> XHTML and HTML), and that Appendix C doesn't make the document HTML
> compatible, it makes it compatible with HTML browsers which share
> certain common (but *not* universal) bugs.
>

I guess that a tool for testing Appendix C conformance is what I need
then. I've been mandated to re-do our site (http://alamo.nmsu.edu)
using XHTML according to templates using the 1.0 doctype. This thread
has been quite enlightening. I've read some of the "don't use XHTML"
stuff before but not with quite so much interest as now that I must use
it. The reason given is that we will be using a CMS in the future that
requires XHTML. After some of the reading in this thread, I'm not even
sure that the CMS reason is valid.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

[Back to original message]