Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>]

* Joshua Allen wrote:
>>We aren't that far from having XML+CSS representing a step up from 
>>(X)HTML+CSS.  There's just one browser standing largely in the way.

>Well, this brings up the question of why we need XHTML in the first
>place, if we can just attach CSS to XML?

Good question.

>Actually, I think that browser support for putting CSS on XML is
>actually *better* than support for XHTML.

Yes, but that's Microsofts fault, since IE6 doesn't implement XHTML,
Mozilla and Opera _do_. Talking of IE6, even compatible XHTML documents
delivered as text/html cause major problems, e.g. the XML declaration
prevents triggering it's compliance mode.

>Sure CSS support in general is not so great, but it is easy for
>example to just produce a well-formed XML document that is all <span />
>tags with the original element/tag name becoming the class="" attribute.

You are kidding, aren't you?

>XHTML seems (to me) to sort of violate the separation by making tags
>like <i>, and <b> that actually have presentation semantics implied.

XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1 cover them for historical reasons, XHTML Basic
_doesn't_ include them and who said, you should use them? No one,
instead you are encouraged to use em and strong in preference where
applicable.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/