[microformats-discuss] When we say "XHTML" do we mean...

Ryan King ryan at technorati.com
Mon Oct 17 10:00:41 PDT 2005

On Oct 17, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Robert Bachmann wrote:

> Ryan Tomayko wrote:
>> ... application/xhtml+xml type XHTML, or
>> XHTML-looking-markup-that-people-will-serve-as-text/html-and-will- 
>> not-contain-namespace-information-90%-of-the-time
>> type XHTML? I'm just wondering how liberal implementors are  
>> planning on
>> making their parsers and whether XHTML is going to be considered by
>> implementors as a MUST or a SHOULD.
> As IE6 doesn't support application/xhtml+xml most of the XHTML pages I
> know are served with the MIME type text/html. So it wouldn't be very
> wise to require "application/xhtml+xml".
> IMO it should be enough to require well-formed XHTML which is sent as
> text/html OR application/xhtml+xml.

I know that in X2V, Brian has just used tidy to cleanup any invalid  

My general take on XHTML is this: produce valid, wellformed xhtml;  
send it as text/html ('cause I have to). When consuming, I'll  
typically use tidy or TagSoup to clean things up before I touch them.

Ryan King
ryan at technorati.com

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list