[whatwg] The problems with namespaces in text/html
elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Mon Nov 6 05:51:36 PST 2006
James Graham wrote:
> However, let's assume that we have a tool that can guarantee well-formed
> markup. As you note the pieces for building such tools do exist
> (although, as you fail to note, they are typically both slower and
> harder to use than the pieces for building sites based on simple string
> interpolation). One example is turbogears , which comes with the Kid
> template system by default . Under the covers the Kid template is
> turned into an XML ElementTree  and page rendering involves mutation
> of that tree. Given that, Turbogears will produce sites are good to be
> sent over the wire as application xhtml+xml to supporting browsers (of
> course it is almost certainly possible to break this property if you try
> hard enough). Despite this, _none_ of the sites listed on the turbogears
> front page are sent as anything other than text/html. Apparently authors
> desire the browser support and error-handling of HTML over the simpler
> parsing of XHTML even in situations where they have a real choice.
Publishers don't use application/xhtml+xml because it causes big
problems for IE6. (Again, possibly another non-issue by the time this
spec is actually done.) I actually do publish a few pages as
application/xhtml+xml, and I get complaints about that.
However, if you're sending well-formed XHTML out as text/html, then it
can be handled quite nicely today by existing browsers. Furthermore,
you get all the benefits of easy parseability with XML tools. This is a
really useful, practical combination. I use this on a *lot* of pages, as
do most other people I know publishing well-formed or valid XHTML.
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
More information about the whatwg