Posted by Andy Dingley on 04/27/06 12:20

Bruce Grubb wrote:

> I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0 which
> shoots the whole IE testing idea down.

Ok, that's pretty clueless. How does HTML / XHTML have an effect on the
relative "usefulness" of IE, which is by and large a question of IE's
broken CSS rendering?

XHTML still means Appendix C, pretty much any browser you use. That in
itself isn't a specific criticism of IE or its competition.

> Stuff that HTML 4.0.1 allowed is a
> major no no with XHTML 1.0 as they have to be XML conforming.

Other than the simple low-level question of XML well-formedness, just
what stuff? XHTML 1.0 was just a transcoding from parsing models, not a
change of the underlying spec.

> This alone
> shows a lot of messing around with the format because now EVERY XML
> compliant program in EVERY version must have the same bug as IE for it to
> work.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean here. What "IE bugs" have
relevance for "XML compliant programs" ?


> Since some Microsoft program like Excel 2003 support XML

My toaster "supports electricity" in much the same way that Excel
supports XML. It doesn't mean that I can web author in Excel though,
or that I can use my toaster as a battery charger.

[Back to original message]