On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 23:02, David Menendez
Yes, using foreign namespaces is one of the things recommended against when serving XHTML as text/html. This says nothing about documents following the recommendations in Appendix C.
I'm not debating that it's *possible* to serve HTML with an XHTML mimetype and still see something rendered to the screen. Hundreds of thousands of sites do so every day. But to call this XHTML is absurd.
I agree, if by "absurd" you mean "consistent with the letter and spirit of the XHTML recommendation".
Content served as text/html is not XHTML, any more than content served as text/plain or image/jpg is. *IF* XHTML could be served using "text/html", then my example pages would render identically in browsers with XHTML support. Appendix C is a guideline on how to make the same byte content render *something* when treated as HTML or XHTML; it's intended as a low-fidelity fallback for user agents without support for XHTML (IE). It is *not* a means by which HTML may be labelled XHTML for the sake of buzzword compliance. You seem to be under the common misconception that XHTML is merely an alternative encoding of HTML. This is incorrect. XHTML has a different DOM, different CSS support, and different syntax. HTML and XHTML are like Java and C# -- beneath a superficial resemblance, distinct.