[wp-hackers] WordPress, web standards, and (X)HTML
computerguru at neosmart.net
Tue Dec 5 06:06:35 GMT 2006
I don't get the problem.
On systems that don't completely support XHTML, what's wrong with serving
them as close as we can get?
I know, I know, it's much nicer to ship it as x-html instead of html, but if
we can't - what's the problem? Where's the big catastrophe?
I for one code all my sites in XHTML 1.0 - complete with closing tags, XML
headers at the top, and more. But of course I send out as mimetype html.
Why would you settle for something less? I'm seeing this question being by
those wanting a change, but again, if there is no real, tangible *HARM* in
sending out 100% XHTML-valid content as HTML, and indeed, only good comes
out of it compared to sending out HTML 4.01 (YUCK!), why the hell not?
What's wrong with having 100% compliant XHTML, sending it as HTML, and
waiting for the rest of the world to *actually support* XHTML mimetypes
before changing the header?
Forget IE, there's an entire world of non-XHTML ready devices and entire
operating systems. Not everyone uses the latest version of Firefox or Opera,
as a matter of fact, the majority of the *world* doesn't.
I don't see the problem. Every single "advanced web 2.0" website on the
planet that goes for W3C Compliance uses XHTML 1.0 validation - whether or
not they send out the content as XHTML or HTML mimetypes isn't the end of
the world - and *all* of them (AFAIK) send it out as HTML.
1) Sending XHTML as mimetype XHTML to _browsers that support it_ (given a
reliable identification mechanism) is a great idea.
2) Refusing to send valid XHTML as HTML mimetype and insisting on taking a
_HUGE STEP BACK_ and going for HTML 4.01-compliant instead is just pointless
and wrong on many levels.
When you have something good, why change it? I'm all for number 1, but
number 2 is tantamount to realizing the latest build of MySQL 4.x has a bug,
so you completely eliminate any and all features new to 4.x and go back to
More information about the wp-hackers