On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 19:08, Martin wrote: > > On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 09:24 am, Simon Hill wrote: > > > On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 16:43, Mark Gallagher wrote: > >> George Klingenhoffer wrote: > >>> I remember reading awhile back about browser compatibility issues with > >>> XHTML. If I convert all my HTML to XHTML (which really is tableless > >>> CSS > >>> stuff and standard HTML), would most browsers be able to view the > >>> pages? > >> > >> Um, not it isn't. XHTML is HTML with some modifications to make it > >> more > >> conforming to the rules of XML. > > > > I'd say more like XHTML is XML that looks like HTML. That is, it uses > > the HTML namespace and a similar DTD to HTML 4. > > "XHTML 1.0 is a reformulation of HTML 4.01 in XML, and combines the > strength of HTML 4 with the power of XML... XHTML 1.0 borrows the tags > from W3C's earlier work on HTML 4, and can be interpreted by existing > browsers, by following a few simple guidelines." > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ Indeed. The way I see it is, XHTML is XML, or for UAs that don't know about XML, they see text/html or <html> and treat it like HTML. nb: XHTML's mime-type is application/xhtml+xml.