Lists Home |
Date Index |
* Joshua Allen wrote:
>First, the poor support for XHTML extends far beyond Microsoft. The
>market for tools which consume and produce HTML is vastly more mature.
That is interesting, considering the amount of authors who want to
author HTML documents but cannot do so because of broken tools that
emit things that clearly ain't HTML. So, is this just your impression
or did you do some representative research on this matter? I did not,
so I cannot really tell, but the amount of text/html documents on the
web that do not pass the W3C MarkUp Validator seems to tell a different
story than you.
>My reasons for discouraging XHTML are that it has no appreciable
>benefits. Users should either stick with HTML; or if they want to have
>a pure machine-processable architecture, move to XML+XSLT+CSS. XHTML
>serves no purpose that cannot be met with either of those other two,
How is XSLT exactly relevant here? As far as I understand, XSLT would
serve to transform some XML to some other XML or other format, what
format do you have in mind here? Surely it would be some kind of
recognized markup language that provides means to link other documents
or to offer the user means to communicate with the site in some sens,
e.g. through forms, so it seems that you would send some arbitrary
markup to the browser only to have it transform it to HTML or XHTML,
so, why not just deliver that HTML/XHTML to the browser?