[Irl-dean] A nice summary of why not to use client-side XHTML ...

[Joshue O Connor]

Hi Barry,

>   "XHTML is a very good thing, and I certainly hope to see it
>   gain widespread acceptance in the future. However, it simply
>   isn't widely supported in its proper form.

Because of _one browsers_ lack of support. If it did - this would be a
non issue.

Browsers which do support XHTML properly include Mozilla-based browsers,
such as Mozilla, Netscape 5 and higher, Galeon and Firefox, as well as
Opera, Amaya, Camino, Chimera, DocZilla, iCab, Safari, and all browsers
on mobile phones that accept WAP2. In fact, any modern browser. Most
accept XHTML documents as application/xml as well.[1]

For more on the support for various media types, for those interested
see [2].

> XHTML is an XML
>   format, and to force a web browser to treat it like HTML is
>   going against the whole purpose of XHTML and also inevitably
>   causes other complications. 

Yup - but the degree of complication or any real accessibility issues
that arise from this is a moot point IMO, unless you have any examples,
if so please share.

> Assuming you don't want to
>   dramatically limit access to your information, XHTML can only
>   be used incorrectly, be interpretted as invalid markup by most
>   user agents, cause unwanted results in others, and offer no
>   added benefit over HTML.

I agree that there will be cause for validity errors as the markup is
not being parsed correctly, (as it is being parsed by an SGML parser)
but again if there are any _real_ accessibility issues that arise, or if
indeed you find any issues (like show stoppers and not objections such
as 'Its not an ideal way to deal with code', or minor CSS mishandling)
again please send them my way.

> HTML 4.01 Strict is still what most
>   user agents and search engines are most accustomed to, and
>   there's absolutely nothing wrong with using it if you don't
>   need the added benefits of XML."

User agents etc are only accustomed to it because of the 800 pound
gorillas' lack of support - when that changes - and it will - though
they will probably try and push their own proprietary XML format -
everyone else with play catch up, user agents, vendors etc. Though I do
sometimes use XHTML 1.0 Strict, I have also started to use a HTML 4
Strict doc type in my work and have stopped using transitional doctypes
altogether - primarily due to lack of support in that browser for any
real XML type languages.

There is an interesting thread here about Chris Wilsons' (Microsoft)
reasoning for not supporting 'proper' XHTML  - which on one level makes
sense (rather do it properly that badly) - but also reeks IMO of another
agenda [3]

Welcome to GAWDS BTW :-)

Josh

[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#fussy
[2] http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/results
[3] http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx

********************************************************************

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments 
is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of 
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify 
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to 
delete it and any attachments from your system.

NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated 
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, 
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are 
transmitted.  We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent the views of NCBI


********************************************************************