Jeremy wanted to add apos a long time ago, and it didn't happen then, but we did give in and accept application/xhtml+xml--let's see--two years ago now, so I wonder whether conditions have changed.
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:53:06PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jeremy wanted to add apos a long time ago, and it didn't happen then, but we did give in and accept application/xhtml+xml--let's see--two years ago now, so I wonder whether conditions have changed.
Yep, things change in time... Although HTML 4.01 and other SPECS never succeeded to the point of making serving valid HTML/XHTML a rule of thumb, or best practice, things seem to have improved a bit since our early days (just my perception out of finding more and more dillo-readable sites these days). Escaping ' as APOS finds a solid reason in server contexts where there's a need to accept untrusted input for scripts or databases. I'd say, +1, feel free to commit. PS: Please post a sample URL. Just to get the feel of it. ;) -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:53:06PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jeremy wanted to add apos a long time ago, and it didn't happen then, but we did give in and accept application/xhtml+xml--let's see--two years ago now, so I wonder whether conditions have changed.
Yep, things change in time...
Although HTML 4.01 and other SPECS never succeeded to the point of making serving valid HTML/XHTML a rule of thumb, or best practice, things seem to have improved a bit since our early days (just my perception out of finding more and more dillo-readable sites these days).
Escaping ' as APOS finds a solid reason in server contexts where there's a need to accept untrusted input for scripts or databases.
I'd say, +1, feel free to commit.
PS: Please post a sample URL. Just to get the feel of it. ;)
It was brought to mind when I couldn't retrieve mail the other day and checked http://lavabit.com . One of the news bits says "We've updated our SSL certificate." Hmmm.... looking at the source now, I see that, on one hand, it has <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> ..but, on the other hand, it says <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> ..instead of application/xhtml+xml.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:50:44PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:53:06PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jeremy wanted to add apos a long time ago, and it didn't happen then, but we did give in and accept application/xhtml+xml--let's see--two years ago now, so I wonder whether conditions have changed.
Yep, things change in time...
Although HTML 4.01 and other SPECS never succeeded to the point of making serving valid HTML/XHTML a rule of thumb, or best practice, things seem to have improved a bit since our early days (just my perception out of finding more and more dillo-readable sites these days).
Escaping ' as APOS finds a solid reason in server contexts where there's a need to accept untrusted input for scripts or databases.
I'd say, +1, feel free to commit.
PS: Please post a sample URL. Just to get the feel of it. ;)
It was brought to mind when I couldn't retrieve mail the other day and checked http://lavabit.com . One of the news bits says "We've updated our SSL certificate."
Hmmm.... looking at the source now, I see that, on one hand, it has
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
..but, on the other hand, it says
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
..instead of application/xhtml+xml.
Yes, that's the state of things these days... There's almost no other way than heuristics -- Cheers Jorge.-
participants (2)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
jcid＠dillo.org