[thelist] xhtml vs html

[Joel Konkle-Parker]

> I was all happy and feeling good about myself coding merrily away in 
> xhtml strict when I read this (referenced from one of .jeffs posts I 
> believe):
> "Sending xhtml as text/html is bad"
> http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
>  Now I am having difficulty sleeping and when coworkers question my 
> dogmatic adherence to web and accessibility standards I have lost some
> 
> of the religious zeal I once had in expounding upon their virtues (the
> 
> standards, not my coworkers).
> 
> I wonder if the big brains on the list can offer their knowledge:
> (1) Why would the w3c propose xhtml as the-next-big-thing(tm) if mr 
> hixie claims it is so nasty sent as html
> (2) Are his claims valid? - IE (as in "for example", not "Internet 
> Explorer") , would the carnage he implies actually ensue if / when xhtml
> 
> is sent as xhtml/xml?
> (3) If the w3c don't know what is going on, who does?
> (4) Are sleeping pills the answer?

I found myself in the same boat you did not too long ago. The obvious answer
would have been to send my xhtml files as application/xml+xhtml as they should
be, but that kills IE. Of course, if your xhtml files meet the html
compatibility guidelines, you don't really have to worry. I found this kind of
restrictive though, and kind of a cheap trick to keep IE happy. Ultimately, my
solution was to adhere to ISO html rather than xhtml strict, which works
wonderfully and allows me to sleep at night as well.


--
Joel Konkle-Parker
Webmaster [Ballsome.com]

Phone     [662-518-1636]
E-mail    [jjk3 at msstate.edu]