gnuherds-app-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: HTML vs XHTML


From: Victor Engmark
Subject: Re: HTML vs XHTML
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:09:24 +0100

On 2/25/07, David Paleino <address@hidden> wrote:
Victor Engmark ha scritto:
> On 2/25/07, *Davi Leal* <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:

>     fsf.org <http://fsf.org> "works" on IE6 because of they send XHTML
>     with a content-type of "text/html".  Sending XHTML that way means
>     you get none of the XML-related benefits due to browsers use the
>     HTML parser -- It is written with XHTML but actually working as
>     HTML.

In this case, it's true that there is no "benefit" at all, if we only
consider the user experience.

Accessibility is part of the user experience, and XHTML enforces better accessibility. Developing for compliant browsers and then tweaking for IE is easy once you've done it a bit.

>     Sending a content-type of application/xhtml+xml means that 80% of
>     todays browsers will prompt you to download the document instead
>     of attempting to render it.  It does not look like the browser
>     market can handle application/xhtml+xml yet.

That's weird.
If this is true, I'm ok we should cancel the task, and wait for "better
times".

I've got 4 lines of PHP (if / else) which does the job. It's not difficult to serve XHTML to IE.

>     XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 do not provide benefits. So, I propose stay
>     with HTML 4.01 Transitional and cancel the XHTML tasks. David,
>     what do you think?.
>     It seems it would be a lot of work to no benefit.

I'm ok with cancelling the task.
GNUHerds.org is not strictly related to *nix world (which, I believe, is
as standard-compliant as possible), so I think we should grant
accessibility also to Windows/Mac users using IE.

Still 4 lines of PHP to get accessibility and XML :)

But, I'd like to say, we should be accessible to all. Ok, for that we
follow standards... but if there's some browser (we know which :-P)
which doesn't respect them... shouldn't we consider it?
The best thing to do would be detecting, with an intro page, or kinda,
the browser type. Then, we can choose whether to send text/html or
application/xhtml+xml.

4 lines :D

Besides all the "theorical" questions, I've had some problems. In fact,
there are some HTML attributes which do not exist in XHTML. For some, I
just used CSS, but for others, I couldn't find a valid substitute.
That's why some pages are, actually, hybrid HTML/XHTML. :-(

Huh? XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 are IIRC equivalent. Can you give an example?

--
Victor Engmark
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditar - What is said in Latin, sounds profound
reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]