Re: Is this more or less correct, about the XHTML faq?

On 2 Jan, 22:52, salmobytes <salmoby... (AT) closenuf (DOT) org> wrote:

I'm asking here, not asserting. So I'm not looking for a fight.
Is the following more or less correct?

If you like the logical consistency of *XML and XHTML (lower case
attributes, all attributes must be quoted, all tags closed, etc) you can
write XHTML-like documents THAT DO NOT throw IE6 into quirksmode,
if and only if [...]

Sort of. You need to comply with Appendix C, which means you're also
constrained into a subset of correct XML syntax. In XML the two forms
of "empty element" are equal, but in Appendix C XHTML it does matter
and you must only use one (which isn't formally correct HTML, but it
"works" for all practical purposes)

But, if all of the above is more or less correct, I could argue
there is indeed something gained: I get to use an XML-like syntax I
like.

Depends what you mean by "use". I do an awful lot of internal CMS work
with my "HTML" held in XML so that I can process it with XML tools.
However I then publish this stuff as HTML because it's actually easier
to generate than reliable XHTML Appendix C. I can do this with XSLT
and the output method, but there isn't anything corresponding to
generate Appendix C.