Prev: jQuery crashes again
Next: Where to put javascript in the HTML page? Header or body?
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 3 Apr 2010 15:24
On Apr 3, 5:20 am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote:

> By the way, many of the experts recommend against XHTML and for
> HTML. They have some good reasons. Some details can be found athttp://www..hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml.

I don't see where he recommends against using XHTML. Also, the
arguments against script and style are pointless IMO as it's a better
idea to keep them in separate files anyway. From the link you gave:

> Appendix B: Advanced Authors:
> [...]
> Assuming you are using XHTML 1.0 compliant to Appendix C (or have
> otherwise checked that the XHTML 1.0 you send is compatible with Tag
> Soup processors), then that's fine. All I am saying in this document
> is that sending XHTML as text/html ONLY is harmful.
> [...]
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 5 Apr 2010 09:10
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Haufe ("TNO")
wrote:

>On Apr 3, 5:20�am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
>georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote:

>> By the way, many of the experts recommend against XHTML and for
>> HTML. They have some good reasons. Some details can be found athttp://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml.

>I don't see where he recommends against using XHTML. Also, the
>arguments against script and style are pointless IMO as it's a better
>idea to keep them in separate files anyway. From the link you gave:
>
>> Appendix B: Advanced Authors:
>> [...]
>> Assuming you are using XHTML 1.0 compliant to Appendix C (or have
>> otherwise checked that the XHTML 1.0 you send is compatible with Tag
>> Soup processors), then that's fine. All I am saying in this document
>> is that sending XHTML as text/html ONLY is harmful.
>> [...]

OK, if you have web sites that you made in XHTML and they are
served as application/xhtml+xml and they work well in the
browsers, then I wouldn't argue against that.

By the way, do you have an URL, just for a demo?
application/xhtml+xml is a bit rare these days.

Hans-Georg
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 5 Apr 2010 10:22
On Apr 5, 8:10 am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote:

> By the way, do you have an URL, just for a demo?
> application/xhtml+xml is a bit rare these days.

http://philip.html5.org/demos/mathml/svg.xhtml
http://people.mozilla.org/~roc/clipPath.xhtml
http://people.mozilla.org/~roc/mask.xhtml
http://people.mozilla.org/~roc/filter.xhtml

Search the web for XHTML + SVG
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 6 Apr 2010 18:25
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 07:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Michael Haufe ("TNO")
wrote:

>On Apr 5, 8:10�am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
>georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote:

>> By the way, do you have an URL, just for a demo?
>> application/xhtml+xml is a bit rare these days.

>http://philip.html5.org/demos/mathml/svg.xhtml
>http://people.mozilla.org/~roc/clipPath.xhtml
>http://people.mozilla.org/~roc/mask.xhtml
>http://people.mozilla.org/~roc/filter.xhtml
>
>Search the web for XHTML + SVG

Thanks.

These pages don't seem to work well in Internet Explorer 8.

Hans-Georg
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: jQuery crashes again
Next: Where to put javascript in the HTML page? Header or body?