[whatwg] DOCTYPE shouldn't be optional (fwd)
mattraymond at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 9 07:34:28 PDT 2004
Jim Ley wrote:
> So XHTML is not an XML document?
I didn't say that. I said that XML is not an XHTML document. It's
similar to how a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
>> I don't see the logic in your reasoning. We should drop XHTML
>>because Ian doesn't like it being used in the HTML MIME type?
> No, because WF2 is only relevant to legacy clients, and legacy clients
> mostly only support text/html.
I think you're forgetting the WF2 clients that support XHTML. Also,
I believe Mozilla, Opera and Safari all support XHTML, so why would
employees of these companies define a standard that requires them to
treat HTML and XHTML differently?
More information about the whatwg