Lists Home |
Date Index |
Joshua Allen wrote:
>>>I'm really suspicious of calls to rewrite a better, XML-aware
>>That's fortunately not neccessary, as "more than 95% of browsers in
>>are "XML-based browser",
>So-called XHTML support in browsers is a joke. You can use XML, so long
>as it looks just like HTML with a few minor variations. Change the
>order of namespace declarations, redeclare namespaces, use a creative
>prefix, etc. and it blows up.
And when using XSL v1.0 and transforming to XHTML it blows up if you
have an empty TITLE or SCRIPT. It also blows up if you have an empty
TEXTAREA. IE treats <br></br> and <hr></hr> as two elements -- not
really a blow up, but...
>I really can't believe otherwise intelligent people continue to deceive
>themselves with such wishful thinking.
>I also don't understand why the religious devotion to XHTML, when it was
>only a stopgap idea between HTML and XML+XSLT+CSS support; which we
What is better:
my choice would be the second. Is that a stopgap or better design?