[wp-hackers] WP issues
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Mon Jun 4 17:54:12 GMT 2007
On 4 Jun 2007, at 18:44, Otto wrote:
> On 5/31/07, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> a) If you focus on web standards, why is that very page
>> served as
>> text/html while having an XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE?
>> c) WordPress uses XHTML served as text/html, which MAY be
>> done. Why
>> does this (the blogosphere) "particular marketplace requires it or
>> because the vendor feels that it enhances the product"[RFC2119] (from
>> the normative definition of MAY)?
> I'm surprised people still ask this question... The answer is
> backwards compatibility, of course. IE7 still won't render
> application/xhtml+xml. Until *the* major browser renders it, there's
> no reason to serve it up as such.
But why does the marketplace require XHTML at all? XHTML served as
text/html brings absolutely no advantages over HTML, but gives one
major disadvantage — you become reliant on browser error handling for
the XHTML to parse.
>> b) WordPress by default uses a DOCTYPE that exists for
>> transiting to
>> standards. If you have a focus on web standards, why is this
>> transition still going on after many years?
> Whoa... Are you seriously blaming Wordpress for the whole HTML to
> XHTML transitional period?
No, I'm criticising WP for using a transitional DOCTYPE and not a
> As for the inevitable "why XHTML" question, well, the answer there is
> even simpler: There is no reason. It's up to the theme author. You can
> make an HTML only theme for Wordpress without any real difficulty at
> all, if you like. Themes control the content.
Actually, you can't make an HTML theme. HTML disallows the solidus on
empty tags. WP hard codes that behaviour in several places. It's
impossible to output anything apart from XHTML.
- Geoffrey Sneddon
More information about the wp-hackers