Hello,
When I say that XHTML is not supported by IE, I specifically mean, if you serve XHTML with the Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml, it will be completely unviewable in any version of IE. (It turns out that these days, konqueror, lynx, opera, safari, and firefox all work fine, so only IE is busted).
[Note: I hope you find the rest of this message informative and helpful. Reading it over, I think it sounds a bit like an attack -- which it is not supposed to be. So, be sure to read it in a happy, pleasant, and helpful tone. And, also, I could be wrong about some of this stuff -- it is hard to fine accurate information on the net about it.]
No problem. I asked for it, and I am more than glad that you took the time to explain it to me. I could never consider it in a harsh way :)
The reason your sites work is because you are using the Content-Type text/html, and the browsers are doing their darnest to figure out how to render the code using their HTML engines.
So, it turns out that it's my server. Nice to know. I will investigate it further.
According to the w3c, you *should not* serve XHTML 1.1 Strict with the text/html http header:
Yep, we agree in that. The problem is that I have been serving the wrong mime type without noticing it.
Additionally, your homepage fails to validate:
Due to live editing. No problem there, it will validate and break lots of times until it's done.
If you were to configure your server to properly serve as application/xhtml+xml, then IE users would not be able to view the page.
I am not particularly inclined to migrate to html to fix something that I did not break (it's IE's fault). But I suppose I will have to consider the pros and cons.
So, they question is, what benefit are you hoping to get by serving (invalid) xhtml as text/html?
None. As I said, I thought I was serving xhtml. Otherwise I wouldn't have done
it. Again, thanks for all the insight and wisdom. It's been helpful.
I keep an eye on the new design of the xmonad site :)
Cheers.
--
Jesús Guerrero