On Friday 05 January 2007 22:47, D. E. Evans wrote: > But xhtml-1.0+ *requires* that tags be represented in *lower* > case *only*, and any mixed or upper case representation is > (strictly) invalid. AIUI, today's web authors really should be > striving towards xhtml standards compliance; in this respect, > grohtml's use of lower case is already well on the way. > > In theory, that's nice, but only a couple of web browsers, or other > user agents, truly support XHTML. Most sites, including W3C, that > support XHTML use content negotiation, with redundant files > (HTML and XHTML), or in some cases--following appendix C of XHTML > 1.0--offer a symlink as .html to the .xhtml file. (Mozilla and > Amaya are the only major web browsers that have full support for > XHTML. The new lynx has some support.) XHTML and HTML are not > compatible, do not use the same MIME type, and only by relying on > error correction can a XHTML file be sent as text/html and hope > to be rendered in a usable way. The moment you start using XML > features in XHTML, it becomes unusable to an HTML parser. > > grohtml should stick with HTML 4 for the time being.
I'm not saying that I disagree with this. What I *am* saying is that HTML-4 allows tags to be expressed in lower, upper or mixed case, in a completely case insensitive manner, *without* violating the standard, whereas XHTML-1 *absolutely* *requires* lower case. Thus, by standardising on lower case, grohtml remains *fully* HTML-4 conformant, while also retaining a degree of XHTML-1 readiness. IMO, this is a sensible design decision, in preparation for a *possible* future move to support an emerging XHTML standard; meanwhile, grohtml can continue to generate valid HTML-4, *without* requiring it to sacrifice this level of XHTML-1 preparedness. Regards, Keith. _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
