On 10-09-02 09:57 PM, John Millikin wrote:
Is there any particular reason you're using XHTML instead of HTML? You're using a transitional doctype, invalid IDs, and the .html file extension -- in short, HTML with an incorrect doctype. The markup doesn't even validate. [...] XHTML is supported by most modern browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc), but not by any currently released version of Internet Explorer.
Although I dislike transitional personally, it is perfectly legal xhtml 1.0. I see in another message that the author will repair all IDs if I understand correctly. (If not, easy to pressure the author to repair.) File extension is a more complicated story. Which story do you want, the theory story or the practice story? (It is easy to test that enough platforms out there are happy with it. That should end the practice story. So if you bother to claim there is an issue, you likely want the theory story.) In theory, what does file extension matter? Media type is the dictator. The normative Section 5.1 permits the choice of application/xhtml+xml or text/html. While the latter entails extra requirements in the informative Appendix C, as far as I can see (after all IDs are repaired) they are all met. In a cunning combination of theory and practice in our reality, the file extension .html implies the media type text/html unless the server specifies otherwise. But since text/html is allowed in theory, so is .html allowed in practice. Indeed, Internet Explorer plays along just fine with text/html; it stops only when you claim application/xhtml+xml. For example http://www.vex.net/~trebla/xhtml10.html works. This is a correct use of xhtml 1.0, and I fully endorse it.