[whatwg] Re: OT: (X)HTML and design of site

[Pete Harlow]

Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> Alternatively, if you don't care about ever sending it using the right 
> MIME type, why bother writing it as XHTML?

At the time I wrote it, my reference was the w3c's xhtml1 section 5.1, 
which says text/html is one of two valid mime types, as does the 
referred rfc2854:

<quote>
Published specification:
The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations;
the latest published version is [HTML401].  In addition, [XHTML1]
defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML
4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.
</quote>

Believe me, I do care about MIME types, I even changed ISP once as one 
insisted in sending css as text/plain, which breaks several browsers.

I used XHTML as I felt using the latest HTML spec was the Right Thing 
(TM) to do - and even following appendix C it was a royal PITA to get 
the thing to look roughly the same in all the UAs I test with.

I've no intention of using a MIME type other than text/html for the 
forseeable future, if that stops IE rendering the page.

Regards,

Pete.


This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. 
If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, 
copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, 
and may be unlawful. 
If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete 
this message. Thales, its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete 
transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt.