|
Posted by Eric Lindsay on November 24, 2008, 7:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Eric Lindsay wrote:
> > How much trouble do you really encounter when you serve web pages as
> > application/xhtml+xml?
> >
> > I have some very simple test pages up at
> > http://carlylegardensgnome.com/
>
> Nice in theory, but fly in the ointment is Microsoft.
>
> Since your on a Mac you may be ignorant of the problem, find a Winbox
> and fire up *any* version of IE and visit your page and be WOW'ed by the
> prompt to download the unknown file type.
In my original post I said "I assume that no version of Internet
Explorer (including 8) will show the pages." Since I don't have any
computer running Windows, I haven't personally checked it out.
However I am interested in whether IE shows a blank page, or whether it
really does prompt you to download? Maybe that depends upon which
version of IE you use?
> The lesson here? Unless you have some absolute need of features *only
> *XHTML can provide, all web pages for public access should be HTML!
Isn't XHTML 1.0 basically HTML 4.01, with minor changes? I don't know
whether XHTML 1.1 or later changes that. I would be interested in
hearing of any outstanding feature only some version of XHTML can
provide.
So far I have not used any web page program that actually produces
clean, valid, reasonably semantic html. iWeb comes closest to valid*,
but is in most other respects unsatisfactory to me. *According to
recent Opera MAMA survey of web sites.
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-key-findings/
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-markup-validation-report/ Apple
iWeb sites were valid over 80% of the time, closest competitor
Dreamweaver was under 4%.
My existing cycle of write simple web page by hand, validate, fix errors
(mostly typos these days), upload and so on is getting real old. However
maybe XML tools are a better choice, if I can really use XHTML on the
web.
I am also getting real tired of IE having problems with my existing
valid pages. So I am getting very tempted to just stop writing to suit
IE. Especially on pages like those I used in this test, where I am not
expecting any large general audience. Under those circumstances, a page
that doesn't load at all is in many respects better for me than a page
that looks broken.
--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
| 
XML Sitemap
