2 ms·
> XHTML 1.x was well implemented in most browsers and was highly used by a subset of web developers. Well, the XML part wasn’t. Serve your XHTML as text/html a
by bentley 4y ago
> XHTML 1.x was well implemented in most browsers and was highly used by a subset of web developers.
Well, the XML part wasn’t. Serve your XHTML as text/html and it was “supported” by virtue of being treated like HTML with some minor syntax errors. Serve your XHTML as application/xhtml+xml, as required to get any XML features, and it wouldn’t display in Internet Explorer at all.
XHTML 1.0 was allowed to be served with text/html for compatibility reasons, if you were careful to not make it too different from HTML (don’t self‐close an empty <textarea>, for example, and add a space before every “/>”). XHTML 1.1 didn’t allow the text/html MIME type at all, and so basically nobody used it.
That’s not even getting into XML’s unpopularly draconic error handling for pages that did get served as XML…
- WorldMaker 4y agoI recall I had XHTML 1.x Strict served as XML working in Internet Explorer (that would have been my primary testing/dev browser at the time, even). It was certainly no cakewalk, but it was briefly possible. As I recall it the XML mime types stopped working again shortly after HTML 5 became the headwind.