In terms of browser support and HTML5 compliance, (assuming the page actually XML is well made) service of HTML5 Polyglot How convenient is the page with page application / xhtml + xml HTTP content-type header?
In the earlier times, I served XHTML width text / html> instead of the heading, because otherwise some browsers have rendered or sung the page, but in practice There are some abnormalities.
Does the HTML5 standard also require a browser to support application / xhtml + xml content-type? What is the real state of support in the browser? application / xhtml + xml ?
What are the drawbacks of today's service to not with HTML5 application / xhtml + Browser is not required to support xml or text / html either
existing For compatibility with content and pre-specifications, this specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML (referred to as XHTML syntax), and a SGML (A) Utilizes inspired custom format TML referred to as the syntax). However, implementation of at least one of these two formats must support implementation, although both are supported.
Since IE9, application / xhtml + xml is supported on all browsers, please note.
Let's say that you can create well-formed XML authors, which are not really all rigid, the biggest catch is that not all Unicode characters are valid XML characters, so you should always have user input Additional synthesis should be echoed on the screen to clean any such characters that are not valid in the XML, or your web page will fail to render correctly (or even at all).
In addition, third-party JS libraries are not always polyglot compatible. In particular, trust some documents. Typing () which is not supported for XML documents.
Comments
Post a Comment