At Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:04:14 -0600, Justin Bogner wrote:
Jeremy Shaw wrote:
- serving xhtml as application/xml+xhtml does not work with konqueror or IE (and probably lynx and links)
I'm not sure what the behaviour in IE is (I don't have access to such a browser at the moment), konqueror, lynx, and links2 all render pages acceptably when served as application/xml+xhtml, though they may process them as html instead of xhtml (I'm not sure on this front).
Personally, I wouldn't consider this "not working" or "not viewable at all".
I stand corrected. It appears than *only* IE8 is broken. I have tested FF3, Safari, Konqueror 3.9, links and lynx successfully by viewing this page: http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/xhtml/?type=application/xhtml%2Bxml which properly sets the Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml HTTP header.
Most of the other "problems" with xhtml are more like common pitfalls for document writers who don't understand the differences between html and xhtml and don't test their documents thoroughly.
Right. I believe my main argument is really comes down to: "Why use XHTML if you aren't really going to use it?" It is my understanding that if you are not setting the HTTP Header, Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml, then absolutely nothing you put *in* the document will cause the browser to use the XHTML engine instead of the HTML engine. As a result, that means you can *only* use features found in HTML 4.01 Strict. Alternatively, we *could* use the correct Content-Type, but then IE users would not be able to view the page. Since that only seems to affect windows users, maybe that would be ok -- though some search engines might also have problems. These are the two advantages I can see for using XHTML served as text/html, and why I think they aren't that important to xmonad.org. 1. You can parse valid XHTML with an XML parser I would counter that you can just as easily parse valid (and invalid) HTML with a TagSoup parser (such as, http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~ndm/tagsoup/). I expect (purely opinion) that most people who are in the habit of parsing websites are going to be most familiar with tagsoup parsing anyway, since so few sites validate as XHTML. 2. Your site will be ready for the day when IE supports application/xhtml+xml. All you have to do is change the mime-type and everything is good to go. I am not sure if this is really a big win. In order for that to be true, it means that you have to make sure all of your pages always work correctly when served as text/html or application/xhtml+xml just in case some day you decide to make the switch. That seems like a lot of on-going work for something that may never happen. And, if you did make the switch, and went 100% application/xhtml+xml, you would probably want to clean out all the hacks needed to make sure that the documents really work correctly when served as text/html or application/xhtml+xml. You wouldn't have to, but I bet you would want to ;) In my opinion, the primary advantage of using HTML for xmonad.org is that it will make it easier for contributors to hack on it, and will reduce the total amount of testing needed. As you noted, many people do not understand the differences between xhtml and html, and do not test throughly enough. I think it is probably true that most people who want to contribute to xmonad.org are going to be those kinds of people. There is some hope that if we use plain HTML, and run it through an HTML validator, the results will be somewhat reasonable. I think it would be much more difficult to ensure that all 3rd party submissions work equally well as text/html and application/xhtml+xml. So, it is much more likely that we will just end up with broken XHTML that only works when served as text/html. Or, we will get less contributors. So, I see no compelling reasons to use XHTML, just a lot of possible problems. And I see no reasons not to use plain old HTML. On the other hand, since I only expect xmonad.org to serve content as text/html, it really does not matter that much in the end :p j. ps. I think the real issue is what makes you feel warm and gooey on the inside. Using XHTML is attractive because it is based on XML, and XML is nice and regular. Every open tag has a close tag, etc. So, when you use XHTML, you feel like everything is nice and clean, neatly buttoned up, extensible, and so on. However, I think that only holds if you are serving your content as application/xhtml+xml. When you serve it as text/html, eveything gets messy. So, when serving content as text/html, I prefer to serve real HTML 4.01 Strict, because then everything is nice and orderly again (though, slightly less regular, and not extensible). Using XHTML can also give you a feeling of being cutting edge, because you are using the cool new technology. W3C declared HTML dead and recommend XHTML in 1999, so surely it is going to catch on one of these days, and you'll be at the forefront right ? But, I think using HTML 4.01 Strict can make you even more cutting edge. See, the really cool kids know that HTML 5 is the future, so by using HTML 4.01 we are getting ready for the future that is already coming thanks to the WHATWG. We are not duped by the false promises of the W3C. :p Or something like that. I don't even look at the xmonad.org homepage anyway, so what do I care ;)