Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > 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. [...]
>
> Are you sure?  The FSF-related xhtml sites seem to render in
> 'Standards compliance mode' while the Herds site renders in 'Quirks
> mode' in Iceweasel.

Firefox works fine with XHTML content. IE however can not accept pages sent 
with the XHTML mimetype.

However, when the mimetype is "text/html" Firefox drops own to using the 
standard HTML parser. The rendering engine takes the output of the parser 
(whether its XHTML, HTML, XUL whatever) and displays it.

There is little reason to use XHTML unless you are using any of its extra 
features, which wont work in IE7 ;)


> > 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 disagree with this.  It is not news that some proprietary browsers
> are broken, but we should not prolong the browser wars by avoiding
> 7-year-old good standards like xhtml.  Using xhtml also can have some
> other benefits for automated tools, amongst other things.

XHTML benefits?. Actually none of those benefits make particular sense. XHTML 
is no more accessible than well written HTML. Most mobile devices can handle 
HTML just fine. Again good HTML is as logical and structural as XHTML.  
Admittedly the XHTML might have merit, but only if you're considering 
embedding other XML directly in the markup such as SVG or MathML, but most 
browsers do not support that!.

It interesting to read some of the comments of those restarting the W3C's HTML 
working group in favour of continuing with XHTML2.