css - What are pros to use XHTML 1.0 strict with content="text/html; over HTML 4.01 strict? -


I'm sure all people know here that we serve pages with the right mime type (application / xhtml + xml) Can not say that XHTML will be parsed as HTML from any browser without breaking IE compatibility, and any content given with text / HTML. So if the content is not parsed as XML.

I use the XHTML dot type for only one reason: it helps to find "errors" in my markup more stringent than HTML. Even if my documents are also used as text / html

Is HTML 4.01 strict to use XHTML 1.0 strict with content = "text / html" Have other benefits? Currently and in the future

  1. If I'm already writing well valid HTML 4.01 strictly and
  2. Any additional XHTML features (SVG, DocBook, Mathal , OFX, etc.),
  3. never to manipulate my XHTML from XL (T)
  4. Application in the server document / html + xml
>

Nobody. You do not get any benefit from XHtml. As far as browser is concerned, this is going to be strange HTML, not XML. To achieve the advantages of XML, such as extensibility and hard parser (if this is a benefit), then you have to give your page as application / xhtml + xml , and IE supports it Will not The mention is incompatible with XHTML 1.0 2.0, while HTML will always be future proof.

You want to read among many others. Use small, only XHtml if you know you need it, otherwise it is useless.

The XHTML also does not mean that browsers will be consistent with the standards. Do not worry about standard vs. quarks mode stuff, it's something that has stood for back compatibility. When a browser faces a page with a page (any doctype, HTML or XHTML), then it will try to present it according to the standards. This does not mean that it will be presented as W3C, which means that it (and possibly will not succeed).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

oracle - The fastest way to check if some records in a database table? -

php - multilevel menu with multilevel array -

jQuery UI: Datepicker month format -