David Mark said the following on 7/21/2007 3:41 PM:
If you consider IE having to parse it as tag soup and then trying to
make sense of the resulting DOM "fine with it".....
They said that about IE7...
They said that about IE6...
As I understand it, it just missed the cut in IE7.
The last I read from MS about XHTML was that it simply wasn't worth the
effort to support it for the small benefit it offers over HTML4.01 Strict.
That sounds like a turn of the century quote to me.
And you have not seen me say differently. We are not discussing XML, we
are discussing XHTML and - directly - it's use as a language on the Web.
As I am sure you know, XHTML is XML. That's the whole point. Just
like RSS and XHTML Basic are XML. You can easily transform one flavor
into another, but you can't efficiently transform HTML into anything
useful.
You have, sadly, mistaken me for an XHTML detractor. It has it's
benefits, just not for the WWW in general.
Okay. An "XHTML on the Web" detractor.
It only takes common sense to figure it out.
Figure what out? The w3c has never said that HTML 5 is a replacement
for XHTML 2. They are two different initiatives with completely
different goals.
Once again, you have - mistakenly - assumed I am an "XHTML detractor"
when that is not true. I just know it is a mistake to put it on the Web
for an audience where 80+% of the clients don't know what it is.
IE doesn't know what it is technically, but it renders it just fine.
It seems to me that the real concern of the "XHTML is harmful on the
Web" crowd is that 90% of the authors don't know what it is. But that
is not my concern.