I am dumb, I need help

[piratePenguin]

Why does it matter? Not all browsers support the proper mime type to serve an XHTML1.1 Strict page anyways.

Well, if we're talking about XHTML 1.0... it became a W3C recommendation almost exactly 6 and a half years ago. Firefox and every other half-modern gecko-based browser, Opera, Konqueror and Safari all support the XHTML MIME type, and for quite a while too. Hell, even links does! Microsoft Internet Explorer however, does not. Not even IE 7.

I would never send an XHTML document as text/html. It's just extra work and it's just wrong if you ask me (if it's an XHTML document it's not a HTML document so text/html is a wrong way to identify it). And what for, for an X? HTML 4.01 does the job just fine.

You don't get any of the cool XHTML things (or at least none of the ones I know about) anyhow when you send as text/html.

But if you follow the HTML compatibility guidelines, then XHTML as text/html isn't so bad. But that's extra guidelines to follow, and for what benefit? :/

http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#text-html

[xyle_one]

What benefits?

I see nothing wrong with serving an xhtml doc as text/html. Everyone does it, no one complains. And until IE supports it, it is not exactly in my best interests to do it. Why would I cripple my site for over 70% of my viewers?

[H_TeXMeX_H]

I don't care about my viewers that run IE, in fact I should probably make them pass the test first before coming to my site (Technically this has been fixed if IE has been fully patched up, but I dunno, I'd have to test it on a Window$ machine ... maybe I will tomorrow)

[xyle_one]

I do not have the luxury of denying a thousand people access to my site. Nor would my clients be very happy if their site didn't work in IE. Most of the projects I do for them are extensions of their business that their clients rely on. Most people use IE. It would be very dumb to exclude them from viewing my site. Besides, this isn't 1997 anymore. If you aren't a complete hack you can make your site work in all modern browsers, and degrade for the crappy browsers, while still be accessible.

Worker201 if you have any questions go to the other forum, I will answer them there.

[piratePenguin]

What benefits?

I see nothing wrong with serving an xhtml doc as text/html. Everyone does it, no one complains.

text/html identifies a HTML document. For XHTML application/xhtml+xml is the "proper" MIME type. Although text/html works too, even browsers that support XHTML won't treat the document as XHTML - so the benefit of using XHTML of HTML is what I'd love to know.
[qupte]And until IE supports it, it is not exactly in my best interests to do it.[/quote]...typo somewhere?

Why would I cripple my site for over 70% of my viewers?

If you care about the IE users then definitely don't write an XHTML document and send it as application/xhtml+xml. I would and do use HTML 4.01 (for a FEW pages, XHTML (sent as application/xhtml+xml) for almost everything since most of the interesting content on my site is useless to IE users anyhow).

XHTML sent as text/html is another option (when IE users must see the page) but like I said, that's extra work.







Extra work for a fooking X.

[xyle_one]

Yeah, it really is extra work.

I make my sites XHTML Transitional most of the time, and present it as text/html. I have had no issues with this at all. Maybe it's not proper. And maybe it pisses of some people, but the site works, renders exactly how I want it, and no one got hurt because of it. I see no problem there.

IE is still the most "popular" browser. Even though everyone I know, for the most part, uses something else, the reports I get for my sites tells me that IE still dominates over everything else save for a few, where it is still at around 70%.

Of the remaining 30%, 20-25 are firefox, the rest of that split up between opera, safari, misc linux browser.

Again though, what is the benefit of presenting a true XHTML document?

[piratePenguin]

Yeah, it really is extra work.

I make my sites XHTML Transitional most of the time, and present it as text/html. I have had no issues with this at all. Maybe it's not proper. And maybe it pisses of some people, but the site works, renders exactly how I want it, and no one got hurt because of it. I see no problem there.

When I made my first XHTML site I was all happy with it (Valid XHTML strict, w00t I rock!), and then I learned about this MIME type issue, so obviously I went to see what my pages look like when they're actually treated as XHTML. One kinda noticeable difference is that my background only covered the content - not the entire document. Turns out "In XHTML as XML the viewport starts with the document's top element, the html element" (source. I'm sure I could find it in the W3C spec if you wanted).

If you think about it, for all intents and purposes XHTML web-pages sent as text/html are HTML 4.01 pages with added crap (e.g. the XML declaration when the document won't be treated as XML at all. The XML namespace attribute which will be completely ignored...).

IE is still the most "popular" browser. Even though everyone I know, for the most part, uses something else, the reports I get for my sites tells me that IE still dominates over everything else save for a few, where it is still at around 70%.

I aint got nothing against building pages for IE! When I need a page to work on IE I'd just use HTML 4.01 instead of HTML + the XML crap which won't ever be used (aka XHTML sent as text/html).

Again though, what is the benefit of presenting a true XHTML document?

Oh, this is what you were asking before.

(1) it'll be treated like what it is - an XHTML document. The browser will report an error when the document isn't well formed. The viewport will start with the html element rather than the body element, as per the XHTML specs.
(2) You can use inline SVG, MathML and other XML formats in the document thanks to XML namespaces (I've done this before, plus with XUL. It rocks).
(3) When XHTML 2.0 comes out, you won't have to turn down 70% of your established user base if you feel like using some of it's cool features (XHTML 2.0 will NOT be backwards compatible with HTML, THANK GOD!). XHTML 2.0 has some very nice features and I ain't waiting 20 years for IE to add support (but maybe I will wait a fair few years for the other browsers that actually put effort into standards compliance in every release). See http://programming.newsforge.com/newsvac/06/01/27/1747243.shtml to learn about some of the new features.
(4) Since IE's out of the picture for the next 20 years, you can consider using XForms (when it's ready) and SVG (already ready) and anything new that comes from the W3C or anywhere else.
(5) A few IE users just might see the light - their web-browser sucks, and get a new one, especially if they find out that XHTML 1.0 is over six and a half years old and Microsoft's IE is the last major web-browser to add support, years behind the likes of Firefox and Opera and even (most likely) Konqueror.

Now, I am NOT suggesting you or anybody else switch your/their sites to XHTML sent as application/xhtml+xml. In general I recommend HTML 4.01, strict if the developer can handle it, when pages must work in IE.

[xyle_one]

Thanks

Basically, there is potentially a ton of added value by making my document much more versatile, open, and extensible by serving a truly XHTML page.

Someday.

Personally I prefer the markup xhtml forces me to use over regular html. It feels tighter and cleaner to me, so I will continue to use it.

[piratePenguin]

Personally I prefer the markup xhtml forces me to use over regular html. It feels tighter and cleaner to me, so I will continue to use it.

I prefer it when it actually forces me

[pofnlice]

have you tried a hammer?

[worker201]

There's really no point in making something strict or standards compliant if it doesn't matter to the browser or the user.  Unfortunately, I have this "geek honor" streak.  Making all my pages XHTML-strict is like street credibility.  I can look at a web page and know that it is done as right as it can possibly be, according to an accepted body of standards.  It's more difficult to do XHTML-strict, but it pays off with that sense of accomplishment you feel after it's published.  And that sense of accomplishment is just about the only thing you can get out of a computer.

[pofnlice]

well until they finalize those human sexual interface devices they were workin on...it makes your cyber more live'er...or somthin like that...