9 ms·
IE6’s refusal to display any page served with the XHTML MIME type was certainly the main reason nobody deployed real XHTML, but the overstrictness was not far b
by bentley 2y ago
IE6’s refusal to display any page served with the XHTML MIME type was certainly the main reason nobody deployed real XHTML, but the overstrictness was not far behind. Hard enough to justify a complete rewrite of your website’s HTML; even harder when any encoding error or tag imbalance generated by your CMS would display the yellow screen of death rather than a best guess or even displaying everything up to the error:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yellow_screen_of_death.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yellow_screen_of_dea...
- dvdkon 2y agoI think if XHTML was pushed forward, the second problem would be swiftly solved: We'd have a lot more systems that considered webpages as XML documents rather than just templated text. And text-based systems could easily validate their XHTML output and report failures quickly, as opposed to now where you get a broken page and have to specifically look if your HTML isn't malformed.
- bazoom42 2y agoIf there was an actual benefit to using XHTML I’m sure CMS’s would be updated to support it. It is not like it is an impossible problem to produce syntactically valid JSON or SVG for example. As “use strict” in JavaScript shows, it is possible to introduce stricter parsing of an existing format, as long as it is explicit opt-in and existing content is unaffected.
- notpushkin 2y agoI think the main problem with CMSes supporting XHTML would be that basically every single one uses template engine that treats HTML as a string of characters. Is there a templating system that’s easy to use (think Jinja or something Svelte-like), but parses templates as XML instead of just concatenating a bunch of strings?