Comments on: Abusing XHTML http://lucumr.pocoo.org/cogitations/2007/10/05/abusing-xhtml/ Armin Ronacher thinking Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:45:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: faxi http://lucumr.pocoo.org/cogitations/2007/10/05/abusing-xhtml/#comment-656 faxi Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:38:10 +0000 http://lucumr.pocoo.org/cogitations/2007/10/05/abusing-xhtml/#comment-656 Ok, this shows only that these sites did not validate their stuff. So what - Anybody who delivers content with an xml content type will have to reckon with that. It's not that difficult to run the W3C log validator on one's server each week and fix any broken pages. If xhtml content is not well-formed, then browsers *should* refuse to display it when it is delivered as application/html+xml. Otherwise xhtml support in mainstream browsers would become as spoiled as legacy html support. If people *see* that their content is broken, because the browser brings this fact up, then it will be fixed. Otherwise bad practices will continue. But the sites that you mention would know what they are doing if they should start delivering their content with an xml-based mime type at some point. Ok, this shows only that these sites did not validate their stuff. So what - Anybody who delivers content with an xml content type will have to reckon with that.

It’s not that difficult to run the W3C log validator on one’s server each week and fix any broken pages. If xhtml content is not well-formed, then browsers *should* refuse to display it when it is delivered as application/html+xml. Otherwise xhtml support in mainstream browsers would become as spoiled as legacy html support.

If people *see* that their content is broken, because the browser brings this fact up, then it will be fixed. Otherwise bad practices will continue. But the sites that you mention would know what they are doing if they should start delivering their content with an xml-based mime type at some point.

]]>