Slash Boxes

Slash Open Source Project

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2005, @01:02PM (#6249)
    Why, why, why, why are you not using xhtml? Why even bother to modernize it, if you're going to bring it up to 2001 standards in 2005?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Because what’s important in today’s web is not XHTML but the semantic web. XHTML will not be important until XHTML 2.0 and proper application/xhtml-xml support in ie.
      • Since when did Microsoft write the standards for XHTML?

        Using XHTML now would be better than trying to retrofit the code AGAIN in the next year or so.

        You and I BOTH know Microsoft will NEVER put proper support for HTML, XHTML or anything relating to them, in IE.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          ... which is why XHTML is a non-starter for anyone who cares more about having their content read than about enabling the W3C's NIH issues (as in, HTML is based in SGML, not our beloved XML, so therefore it must be replaced). Leave XML for raw data; XHTML is a completely unnecessary tangent and ought not be encouraged.

          And look: I'm not alone! []
    • I am also a bit puzzled as to why you aren't using xhtml 1.1 . Is there something in html4.0 that isn't in xhtml1.1 that you need? I can't imagine what it is. Or is it just that the time to make it xhtml1.1 compliant would be much more than html 4.0?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Probably because:

      • XHTML 1.1 shall be served with the MIME type "application/xhtml+xml" and not "text/html", and MSIE doesn't understand "application/xhtml+xml"
      • XHTML 1.0 served as text/html is no better (not at all, it's the same, it's parsed the same by browsers and it behaves in exactly the same ways when you apply CSS or JS to it, which is not the case of XHTML 1.0 served as application/xhtml+xml to browsers which can grok it)

      Basically, because HTML4.01 Strict is just as worthy as XHTML 1.0 Strict and

    • If an advertiser puts non-XML code on an XHTML page, the standard-compliant browser behavior is to refuse to display it. That's not a tolerable situation for Slashdot. That's the main reason.

      (We had a long discussion about this a few months back, and 4.01 only squeaked past XHTML by a hair.)

      And there are many great reasons to move "part of the way" to 4.01. It makes our development smoother, makes customization for other sites a lot easier (once we provide some tools and docs for that), frees up some of

    • by Anonymous Coward
      More information: []