|
Posted by André Gillibert on December 18, 2007, 5:54 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> The situation is the same. On the other hand, XHTML 1.1 is an exercise
> in futility. Even if you fake it to be text/html (there's an eternal
> debate over the issue whether this is even "legal")
The W3C seems to endorse that practice, but common sense says as sending
something that's not HTML as text/html is a lie, leading to
interoperability problems.
This make me think of those baby games, where you've to put shapes in the
right holes.
http://store.babycenter.com/images/en_US/local/page_specific/brand_page/babys_first_blocks_feature_image.jpg
Serving XHTML as text/html is like finding the cube (XHTML) "much
prettier" than the cylinder (HTML), but as there's no hole (in IE) for the
cube, striking with a hammer on the cube to make it fit in the cylinder
hole (text/html).
After having been crushed by a hammer, the cube isn't "pretty" anymore.
--
If you've a question that doesn't belong to Usenet, contact me at
<tabkanDELETETHISnaz at yahoDELETETHATo.fr>
| 
XML Sitemap