XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0 - Page 5

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Toby Inkster wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it
               ^^^                                                 ^^^^^^^^
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

... arguments in favour or against what?
Three negations in one sentence are too much!

Re: XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Andreas Prilop wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As I read it: the hon. Usenaut is trying to say that Appendix C of
XHTML/1.0 applies (or at least /had originally been intended to
apply/) also to future versions of XHTML in perpituity, until the W3C
say it's explicitly countermanded.

My understanding, on the other foot, was that Appendix C of XHTML/1.0
was always intended to be an informative comment about a partially
nobbled form of XHTML/1.0 - and only XHTML/1.0 - which was capable of
being served as text/html and would fool most (i.e non-SGML-aware)
then-available browsers.

Appendix C, being an informative comment about XHTML/1.0, was not part
of its definition, and so it came as no surprise that to me that it
wasn't mentioned in the list of changes (sc. of the definition of
XHTML) which appeared in /1.1.  I don't believe this means it was
ever intended to apply to /1.1, nor indeed to later versions.

At any rate, whatever the count of angels on pinheads about the
history, I think the W3C's current stance is clear: the one and only
situation where they approve of XHTML being served temporarily as
text/html is XHTML/1.0-Appendix C.  Any other usage is, at the least,

Not that I really care, since - for production purposes - I'm content
to stay with HTML/4.01 until XHTML is offering some genuinely
deployable benefits.

Re: XHTML 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Unlike most of the discussion here, angels on pinpoints
(points, not heads!) is a serious question...


I hope this helps.


Site Timeline