1 |
While I'm waiting for Aaron to create a new logo I am taking the time to |
2 |
upgrade the site to xhtml-1.1. I put this in a blog post yesterday and |
3 |
already have received numerous reports that I am doing it incorrectly. |
4 |
|
5 |
I want everyone on the list to feel confident in this change: |
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
The specification for xhtml-1.1 says that the server *should* send |
9 |
application/xml+xhtml in the HTTP header but that it *can* send |
10 |
text/html in order to remain backwards compatible with older user |
11 |
agents, IE for example. As long as the doctype is set correctly (and it |
12 |
is) it is still valid xhtml-1.1. |
13 |
|
14 |
In fact, if you use the validator, http://validator.w3.org, and let it |
15 |
auto detect the doctype it correctly detects xhtml-1.1 and validates the |
16 |
page using that specification (ignore the errors, I'm still workin' on |
17 |
it). Browsers will also detect it, including IE, and use the correct |
18 |
specs to render the page. They also render the page in Standards |
19 |
Compliance Mode, including IE. |
20 |
|
21 |
Trust me on this, I researched it *extensively* before making the jump |
22 |
to xhtml-1.1, I didn't just blindly decide to change. I read the entire |
23 |
xhmtl-1.1 specification. I didn't just skim it or skip any parts I read |
24 |
the entire thing. I read the XSLT-1.0 specification to make sure I was |
25 |
doing it right in the xsl. I also read TONS of threads from all over the |
26 |
world discussing this, including from IE support sites, apache, mozilla, |
27 |
w3c (extensively) and web designer sites. |
28 |
|
29 |
MS officially suggests using text/html in the HTTP header when serving |
30 |
xhtml-1.1 documents to IE. Mozilla, Opera, Firefox, Konqueror can all |
31 |
correctly use application/xml+xhtml and officially suggest that is what |
32 |
you send in the HTTP header but **ALL** of them are also backwards |
33 |
compatible with text/html. |
34 |
|
35 |
None of the text browsers, as far as I know, can use |
36 |
application/xml+xhtml yet but, just like IE, they can correctly render |
37 |
an xhtml-1.1 page validly and in Standards Compliance Mode with |
38 |
text/html in the HTTP header. |
39 |
|
40 |
When viewing pages that have been saved locally **all** browsers can |
41 |
correctly load and render the pages if you change the extension from |
42 |
.xml to .html, just like pages that end in .php for example. |
43 |
|
44 |
So, to sum it up: |
45 |
|
46 |
The site is validly serving XHTML-1.1 (except for the errors I haven't |
47 |
fixed yet) that is recognized by all browsers and correctly rendered. |
48 |
The server doesn't have to send application/xml+xhtml in the HTTP header |
49 |
in order for it to be valid, it can send text/html too. |
50 |
-- |
51 |
www-redesign@g.o mailing list |