On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Tor Aqissiaq
<toraqissiaq_AT_googlemail.com> wrote:
> What is wrong with XHTML? Are you implying that HTML is superior?
Yes, HTML is superior to XHTML, I was wrong about this one for years,
but now it is completely clear to me that XML is *always* the wrong
answer, and XHTML is what proved it, even something as bad as HTML
becomes worse when one adds XML.
As I said in another post, loading XHTML documents is *slower* than
loading HTML!
XHTML only has one good thing about it: the abomination that is
document.write() doesn't work in XHTML! Of course this actually
contributed to its failure, which is a good thing too.
uriel
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Anselm R Garbe <anselm_AT_garbe.us> wrote:
>> 2009/10/18 Tor Aqissiaq <toraqissiaq_AT_googlemail.com>:
>>> XHTML, parsed using an XML parser is very specifically defined and
>>> does not look different in different browsers, but few people serve
>>> XHTML documents with the application/xhtml+xml headers, because IE
>>> refuses to parse XML. XHTML parsed as HTML + no better than HTML. I
>>> already use XHTML for sending documents to my friends.
>>
>> XHTML is a sick child that will die soon.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Anselm
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Mon Oct 19 2009 - 14:19:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 19 2009 - 14:24:03 UTC