Dave Silvester wrote:
> I haven't used XHTML 1.1 yet - seems somewhat unnecessary at the moment,
> especially since as far as I remember, it causes problems with some browsers.
> (Not sure if that's right or not, perhaps someone else will clarify?) You're
> supposed to serve it differently too, as "application/xhtml+xml", but I'm
> pretty sure some browsers choke on that as it's not "text/html". There's
> workarounds to sniff what a browser accepts, but for now, I think I'll stick
> to XHTML 1.0 Strict, as it works fine for what I need to do.
I was under the impression that you were 'supposed' to send XHTML 1.0
Strict down as "application/xhtml+xml" aswell as XHTML 1.1 and it was
only XHTML 1.0 Transitional that was 'allowed' to be sent as 'text/html'
because it has a backwards compatibility to HTML 4...
I am presuming that 'XHTML 1.0 Other' in the above table refers to XHTML
1.0 Strict and therfore 'SHOULD NOT' be sent as mime type 'text/html'...
Is this not the case? I am confused because many highly regarded authors
seem to use XHTML 1.0 Strict and send it as 'text/html'...
I know this is off topic, but it's something that has bugged me for
quite some time!...
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/