Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • While working on this redesign, you might want to keep a few things in mind, as poited out by the article below.

    http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

    to sum it up,

    IE6 does not support application/xhtml+xml (in fact, it does not support XHTML at all)

    Documents sent as text/html are handled as tag soup by most UAs.

    This is the key. If you send XHTML as text/html, as far as browsers are concerned, you are just sending them Tag Soup. It doesn't matter if it validates, they are just going to be treating it the same was as plain old HTML 3.2 or random HTML garbage.

    lots more detail in there, for the HTML/CSS/XHTML-savvy and strongly recommend you consider carefully the ramifications of offering XHTML as text/html particularly where IE6 is concerned (since it will be rendered as tag-soup, not XHTML)
    • 'poited' ? heh I must have been in Pinky & The Brain mode.

      Anyway, I wanted to add that some lively discussion of these issues can be had in the #web channel on Freenode (great bunch of folks by the way. one of my favorite freenode channels.) in addition to more FAQ info linked therein by its helpful denizens.
    • Yeah, I've been wondering if we should bother with XHTML, and this gives me more reason to wonder.

      At this stage, there's no real difference between HTML and XHTML, as long as I we're being XHTML-compliant, except in whether to add the slash to empty tags like <br />. But pretty soon we will need to make that decision.
      • IMHO, Hixie's comments are valuable and interesting, but concerned more with correctness than practicality. Porting a major CMS from tag-soup to HTML in 2005 is a half-measure. XHTML requires little extra effort and is more forward-compatible.

        If you read his page, you'll notice that nearly all of his points against XHTML are of the "unless you're careful, this will bite you" variety. Solution: use XHTML, and be careful. Just internalizing what he writes will give you a significant leg up on the probl

        • The thing is, if we are not going to have perfect XHTML, then there is no point to using XHTML.

          So that is the issue I am going over right now with my peeps. WIll it be perfect, always? If not, why bother using XHTML at all?