ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>>You have to serve XHTML as ³text/html² for both.
>
> While XHTML 1.0 may be served as text/html, the
> W3C requires XHTML 1.1 to be served as
> application/xhtml+xml, if I remember correctly.

You do, but no version of IE will render XHTML when it's served according
to spec. And when it's served as text/html, IE uses its traditional HTML
parser, *not* an XML parser.

That's why XHTML it pointless - because the most common browser in use
today doesn't recognize it as such. All it sees is slightly broken HTML.
That being the case, the smart thing to do is to give it correctly served
and valid HTML instead.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Sherman Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> writes:
>That's why XHTML it pointless - because the most common browser in use

It seems as if some large companies (including W3C members?)
do actively fight (W3C) web standards. I also think of a mayor
search engine with a homepage that does not even validate
(intentionally).

Possibly, some parties might actively deny support for
XHTML in order to support HTML 5 or other goals or just
to weaken the W3C.

This behavior does not speak for or against the actual
technical merits/advantages/disadvantages of XHTML.
If the W3C should be heading in the wrong direction, it
might not be bad to fight it. But actually, the bodies/
committees of the W3C should be the place for fights/
discussions about web standards, not the market place.

Or may be the market place is the ultimate judge? But then we
want the customer to be the judge, not the supplier. This
would mean that the supplier should implement both XHTML 1.1
or 2 (delivered as »application/xhtml+xml«) and HTML 5 and then
the page authors and readers should decide what they prefer.