HTML validation

..oO(C A Upsdell)

dorayme wrote:
In article <fs1kss$272$1 (AT) registered (DOT) motzarella.org>,
C A Upsdell <cupsdell (AT) upsdell (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
XHTML 1.0 isn't usable on the web, because IE won't work with it.
B---S---

Not really.

Really. It is BS, and I am sure that Dingley knows it is BS. As you --
and he, and most people in this newsgroup -- are aware:

1. IE does not support XHTML.

2. BUT: IE does render XHTML well with a media type of text/html.

Which is not much of XHTML anymore. You have to follow the App. C
guidelines and label and deliver it as HTML, so that the browsers
will handle and render it as HTML, even if it's no HTML ... stupid.

IE can't handle proper and correctly delivered XHTML. Period.

3. AND: the W3C blesses the use of text/html when dealing with user
agents like IE: see the W3C document, "XHTML Media Types", which among
other things requires that the media type be text/html for HTML agents,
that the media type be application/xhtml+xml for XHTML user agents ...

The 'text/html' media type [RFC2854] is primarily for HTML, not for
XHTML. In general, this media type is NOT suitable for XHTML.

And the table at the bottom of that document clearly shows that proper
XHTML should _not_ be delivered as text/html. If you have to write and
deliver it as HTML, then why attempt to use XHTML at all?

Micha

In article <eJZEj.1206$n8.286 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects it
to HTML. That is also not "working with it".

Perhaps that is a teensy weensy bit harsh rf? Surely it is reaching an
accommodation with it and so in a sense it is working with it.

It is an interesting social problem how come so many people use the
xhtml doctype when there is so little point. It got some press and off
it went like Britney...

--
dorayme

In article <fs1sgb$13t$1 (AT) registered (DOT) motzarella.org>,
C A Upsdell <cupsdell (AT) upsdell (DOT) invalid> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <fs1kss$272$1 (AT) registered (DOT) motzarella.org>,
C A Upsdell <cupsdell (AT) upsdell (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
XHTML 1.0 isn't usable on the web, because IE won't work with it.
B---S---

Not really.

Really. It is BS, and I am sure that Dingley knows it is BS. As you --
and he, and most people in this newsgroup -- are aware:

1. IE does not support XHTML.

2. BUT: IE does render XHTML well with a media type of text/html.

3. AND: the W3C blesses the use of text/html when dealing with user
agents like IE: see the W3C document, "XHTML Media Types", which among
other things requires that the media type be text/html for HTML agents,
that the media type be application/xhtml+xml for XHTML user agents ...
and notes that content negotiation may be used to specify the
appropriate media type for each user agent.

4. THEREFORE: XHTML 1.0 is *useable*, because IE *will* work with it,
so long as the relevant W3C guidelines are followed.

What Dingley *could* have said is that the use of XHTML is not
recommended, that authors should use HTML 4.01 instead: but there is a
HUGE difference between "not usable" and "not recommended". There are
many XHTML sites on the web which are perfectly usable, even with IE.

OK, I can see you are in a passionate mood on this. I was understanding
what he was saying differently to you, reading behind the actual words.
I am a soft touch at the moment because I am delving into html root
theory and it makes ordinary earthly concerns a bit vague and fuzzy. <g>

--
dorayme

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote

In article <eJZEj.1206$n8.286 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects
it
to HTML. That is also not "working with it".

Perhaps that is a teensy weensy bit harsh rf? Surely it is reaching an
accommodation with it and so in a sense it is working with it.

How is converting it to HTML "working with it"? Why serve XHTML to a browser
(with any mime type) when you *know* the browser going to convert it to
HTML, and possibly make a mistake in its error correction?

It is an interesting social problem how come so many people use the
xhtml doctype when there is so little point. It got some press and off
it went like Britney...

Why do so many people still use HTML comments inside a script element when
the only reason to do so was a bug in one single release of IIRC netscape 3
which only lasted for a few weeks anyway?

Because most of the population are sheep, blindly following the one in front
of them, unable to lift their head up a bit to have a real look around.

--
Richard.

In article <nG3Fj.1330$n8.1027 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-8DAB16.17344722032008 (AT) news-vip (DOT) optusnet.com.au...
In article <eJZEj.1206$n8.286 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects
it
to HTML. That is also not "working with it".

Perhaps that is a teensy weensy bit harsh rf? Surely it is reaching an
accommodation with it and so in a sense it is working with it.

How is converting it to HTML "working with it"?

By accommodating it! Now we are going in circles. Actually, I have no
argument with you, I know what you mean. It cannot take advantage of
anything that the doc "unconverted" has to offer. You are just
momentarily more furious about it than I am.

It is an interesting social problem how come so many people use the
xhtml doctype when there is so little point. It got some press and off
it went like Britney...

Why do so many people still use HTML comments inside a script element when
the only reason to do so was a bug in one single release of IIRC netscape 3
which only lasted for a few weeks anyway?

Because most of the population are sheep, blindly following the one in front
of them, unable to lift their head up a bit to have a real look around.

Ah yes, sheep... sheep? Sheep! New Zealand!

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <nG3Fj.1330$n8.1027 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-8DAB16.17344722032008 (AT) news-vip (DOT) optusnet.com.au...
In article <eJZEj.1206$n8.286 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects
it
to HTML. That is also not "working with it".
Perhaps that is a teensy weensy bit harsh rf? Surely it is reaching an
accommodation with it and so in a sense it is working with it.
How is converting it to HTML "working with it"?

By accommodating it! Now we are going in circles. Actually, I have no
argument with you, I know what you mean. It cannot take advantage of
anything that the doc "unconverted" has to offer. You are just
momentarily more furious about it than I am.

It is an interesting social problem how come so many people use the
xhtml doctype when there is so little point. It got some press and off
it went like Britney...
Why do so many people still use HTML comments inside a script element when
the only reason to do so was a bug in one single release of IIRC netscape 3
which only lasted for a few weeks anyway?

Because most of the population are sheep, blindly following the one in front
of them, unable to lift their head up a bit to have a real look around.

Ah yes, sheep... sheep? Sheep! New Zealand!

What, finger pointing? Australia is plenty sheepish, with all those

"sheep stations" (I always picture sheep in business suits on the
railway platform looking at their watches, waiting impatiently for the
8:06) so far away from anything that the children have their entire
education and social life by radio.

On 22 Mar, 00:46, C A Upsdell <cupsd... (AT) upsdell (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
XHTML 1.0 isn't usable on the web, because IE won't work with it.

B---S---

Just fuck right off and read the whole post, not the partial quote of
it (reasonable snip though that was, in context).

On 22 Mar, 02:56, C A Upsdell <cupsd... (AT) upsdell (DOT) invalid> wrote:

What Dingley *could* have said is that the use of XHTML is not
recommended, that authors should use HTML 4.01 instead:

Read the fucking post you pinhead. Saying "Use HTML instead" would be
an irrelevance in this context - it was a post about an obscure issue
with XHTML.

Secondly I did advise the OP, in some detail, about the necessary use
of text/html.

In article <64kjisF1grdukU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

Ah yes, sheep... sheep? Sheep! New Zealand!

What, finger pointing?

No no... look Harlan, it would be indelicate of me to explain this
matter so publicly. er... it is a sort of DISGUSTING oz in-joke about
our friends across the Tasman.

I cannot go into it. Except perhaps to refer you to:

http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/nzCabinetMinister.html

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <64kjisF1grdukU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

Ah yes, sheep... sheep? Sheep! New Zealand!

What, finger pointing?

No no... look Harlan, it would be indelicate of me to explain this
matter so publicly. er... it is a sort of DISGUSTING oz in-joke about
our friends across the Tasman.

I cannot go into it. Except perhaps to refer you to:

http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/nzCabinetMinister.html

Oh, baa-a-a-a!