On 10-09-04 01:31 AM, John Millikin wrote:
It's not correct. Here's the exact same XHTML document (verify by viewing the source), served with different mimetypes:
http://ianen.org/temp/inline-svg.html http://ianen.org/temp/inline-svg.xhtml
This relies on xhtml+svg. While it is in the xhtml family, it is not xhtml 1.0 (Section 3.1.2). This is a non-example and non-reason. New haddock pages are xhtml 1.0 (after repairing IDs).
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.
You have got the order reversed. serve html with an xhtml mimetype /= serve xhtml with the html mimetype But suppose you made a typo. And bear in mind again we are talking about specifically xhtml 1.0, and furthermore with restrictions. "serve xhtml with the html mimetype, call this xhtml" is not absurd. The syntax is xhtml. "serve xhtml with the html mimetype, call this html" is not absurd. A bit of a kludge, yes --- officially blessed kludge, mind you. But not absurd.