[whatwg] Wasn't there going to be a strict spec?

Erik Reppen erik.reppen at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 08:15:08 PDT 2012

That spells out a major browser vendor issue much more clearly. I think
just having the option to develop in application/xhtml+xml and switching to
text/html is a good start though.

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Karl Dubost <karld at opera.com> wrote:

> Le 10 août 2012 à 20:19, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> > I don't wish to spend the time to dig up the studies showing that 95% or
> so of XML served as text/html is invalid XML
> That doesn't really makes sense, but I guess what Tab meant is
> People attempting to write documents
> * with XML syntax rules (such as for example XHTML 1.0),
> * and serving it as text/html.
> Often, these documents are NOT well-formed, even before being valid, and
> even-less conformant.
> On top of that you can add a layer of madness with user-agent sniffing. I
> have documented one we had in Opera and forced us to recover automatically.
> *unfortunately*. It also makes the task of creating a survey very hard
> because… well you get different markup, redirections, etc. aka results
> because of the user agent sniffing.
> See [Wrong To Be Right - application/xhtml+xml][1]
> [1]:
> http://my.opera.com/karlcow/blog/2011/03/03/wrong-to-be-right-with-xhtml
> For stats, there are two big surveys which have been made in the past
> (maybe it is what Tab refers to)
> https://developers.google.com/webmasters/state-of-the-web/
> http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama/
> PS: Erik, you can also rely on XHTML5. Aka serving your document as
> application/xhtml+xml, expect issues with browser market shares in some
> countries.
> --
> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
> Developer Relations, Opera Software

More information about the whatwg mailing list