| 195 | | {{{ |
| 196 | | #!comment |
| 197 | | "XHTML isn't supported by many browsers." - please point at least one; IE 7, IE 8, FF 2+, FF 3+, Opera 9+ support XHTML Safari 3+; those browsers are used by +98% of peoples so where is problem? HTML 4.01 is obsolete - it was designed in 1999... --Simek |
| 198 | | |
| 199 | | Wikipedia says: "The notable exception is Internet Explorer by Microsoft; rather than rendering application/xhtml+xml content, a dialog box invites the user to save the content to disk instead. Both Internet Explorer 7 (released in 2006) and the initial beta version of Internet Explorer 8 (released in March 2008) exhibit this behavior, and it is unclear whether this will be resolved in a future release." --Nicolas |
| 200 | | |
| 201 | | Results of test for XHTML compatibility: http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/results |
| 202 | | It's true that IE has some issues and problems with XHTML+XML but most of today's websites uses XHTML 1.0+ and in my opinion BOINC should also migrate to this standard. |
| 203 | | For example: Wikipedia and Microsoft uses XHTML 1.0 Transitional (MS uses web standard not compatibility with their Web Browsers? Huh?) and even BOINC Trac uses XHTML 1.0 Strict. --Simek |
| 204 | | |
| 205 | | "Some problems"? The page you just linked clearly says "Not supported". IE doesn't even display the page. It asks you to download it. That's not "some issues and problems". Sending XHTML as text/html gives you no benefits over normal HTML and gets you some problems (you can't send just any XHTML, you still have to tweak it to be "HTML-compatible"). |
| 206 | | |
| 207 | | Anyway, it was David Anderson who said "no XHTML", not me. I only clarified this page and used more decent arguments for it ("XHTML needs more characters" wasn't exactly a compelling reason). --Nicolas |
| 208 | | |
| 209 | | The page we are editing may be in XHTML but it is delivered as text/html and thus processed as "tag soup". See the following links for details of why XHTML is problematical: |
| 210 | | http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/ |
| 211 | | http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml -- sending xhtml as text/html considered harmful |
| 212 | | |
| 213 | | As far as market share is concerned - see http://marketshare.hits |
| 214 | | They quote IE 6 as still having a 25% market share - installed base will be higher as many using Firefox will not have updated it. |
| 215 | | |
| 216 | | Even if XHTML worked with other MS browsers, we should not generate content which is unreadable by a quarter of the web population. |
| 217 | | |
| 218 | | The only justification for using XHTML is embedded MathML or SVG, etc, but I don't think that applies to our pages. Often one could embed the extra content in an iframe in any case... --MichaelRoberts |
| 219 | | |
| 220 | | There is no downside to serving compatible XHTML as text/html. |
| 221 | | See http://h3h.net/2005/12/xhtml-harmful-to-feelings/ |
| 222 | | |
| 223 | | And remember also that Ian Hickson (the guy who started the scaremongering, and tried to kill XHTML with the article linked by Michael Roberts) is now developing HTML 5. Clearly biased - ignore him. The official W3C recommendation is a) use XHTML and b) serve it as text/html to browsers that don't yet fully support application/xhtml+xml |
| 224 | | -- David Barnard |
| 225 | | }}} |
| 226 | | |
| 227 | | |
