Dave Pawson wrote:

Is it valid to create content that will not be usable for let say 90% percent of users, when you can publish the same content in almost same format that will be accessible for 99.999% of users?

There is no difference between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 other than Ruby annotations. I don't suppose that anyone is using DocBoo+Ruby, so using XHTML 1.0 should be sufficient.

I'm fan of emerging technologies, but OTOH IMHO technology should serve people. So I preffer to use technologies that are working for most people and are standards compliant at the same time. Due to fatal bugs in IE which is the most commonly used browser, it is not possible to use XHTML 1.1 in compliance with standards. In this situation I prefer to use XHTML 1.0 which works for users and which I can publish in a way that is standards compliant.

(BTW: To be honest, I usualy even prefer HTML 4.01, because even with XHTML 1.0 there are some practical browser problems if you want to use it with other encodings than UTF-8. But I don't think that we should delve into standards/quirks rendering modes in browsers in this forum.)

Who knows :-( But I'm sure that serving non-compliant content is not the right way to move further, and serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html is not completely in shape with standards so it moves us somewhere but surely not to place which is more standards compliant.

------------------------------------------------------------------ Profesionalni skoleni a poradenstvi v oblasti technologii XML. Podivejte se na nas nove spusteny web http://DocBook.cz Podrobny prehled skoleni http://xmlguru.cz/skoleni/