[whatwg] Seperation of Content and Interface
jim.ley at gmail.com
Thu Aug 19 08:56:19 PDT 2004
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:42:47 +1000, Lachlan Hunt
<lachlan.hunt at iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> Why not? It's been defined as an acceptable MIME
> type for XHTML, and is, along with text/xml, the
>only registered type for any generic XML document.
Yep, but my argument is that if you're saying it's generic XML, a
browser should not attempt to render it, as it doesn't know that the
content is XHTML, and just rendering the parts that it understands is
unsafe. (XML elements it doesn't understand could alarmingly change
the semantics of the XHTML parts it does and renders.)
> > (it's also been fixed AIUI)
> What exactly has been fixed?
the error in the DTD that you were reporting.
> What? The fact that it doesn't support HTML or XHTML at all
You're claiming IE doesn't support HTML now?
> Seriously, take a look at my site
> in IE, and then tell me you still think IE is better at rendering,
> compared with Mozilla and Opera!
Do you mean: http://www.lachy.id.au/ ? in which case, I seem to get
HTML 4.01 documents... and the rendering is better than the firefox
rendering, which seems really slow... not surprising as it waits for
ages before starting to render it...
More information about the whatwg