Re: [docbook-apps] Simpler XHTML output

[Justus Piater <Justus.Piater@ULg.ac.be>]

Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:08:49 +0200:

> There is no difference between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 other than Ruby
> annotations.

Another major difference is that XHTML eliminates deprecated
elements. I think we should avoid deprecated elements as much as
possible (i.e., without sacrificing important functionality under
current browsers), even if we have to go with XHTML 1.0 Transitional
(see my recent follow-up to Chris Johnson).


Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:55:18 +0200:

> Justus Piater wrote:
>
>> This is not true AFAIK. If I'm wrong, please point me to the relevant
>> part of the specification.
>
> Sure, see section 3.5 of http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

It merely says it "SHOULD NOT" be served as text/html. It seems to me
that we'd have good reasons (lack of XML support by commonly-used
browsers), in the spirit of RFC 2119, to do it anyway. But this point
is moot now, see above...

Justus

-- 
Justus H. Piater, Ph.D.         http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~piater/
Institut Montefiore, B28        Phone: +32-4-366-2279
Université de Liège, Belgium    Fax:   +32-4-366-2620