@CharlesOct 27.2006 — #The only problem with MSIE is that it doesn't understand the application/xhtml+xml mime type. To get MSIE to handle XHTML properly you have to end the filename with a ".xml" extension.
@VairkjosaOct 27.2006 — #Now have to change file extensions for IE again. This is really getting to be a pain. I'm about to give up on IE and just let those who choose to use it suffer. I'm not in this for business so I have nothing to loose. MSIE really needs to get on the ball here.
Does anyone know a good editor that defaults to .xml file extension? A free one?
@CharlesOct 27.2006 — #Better yet, just stick with HTML. For web documents there is no good reason to use XHTML and, as you have seen, XHTML isn't compatable with HTML browsers.
@KravvitzOct 27.2006 — #Why would you want to use XHTML served with an XML mime-type when you don't want to use any of the features found in XHTML but not in HTML?
As far as I know no browser has an X(HT)ML parser that supports incremental rendering. Do you really want to lose that feature?
Edit: I just found out that Opera 7+ supports that, but other browsers don't yet.
@Jeff_MottOct 28.2006 — #Why would you want to use XHTML served with an XML mime-type when you don't want to use any of the features found in XHTML but not in HTML?[/quote]If you are not going to use an XML mime-type then why pretend you are using XHTML at all? This, I believe, is Charles' point. If you tell the browser that the code is HTML, then it will parsed like HTML, and the extra slashes become only syntax errors.
@AscendancyOct 28.2006 — #Which, IMO, it's a lot easier to just stick with HTML. I am sure that is what you first learned, and you know that syntax better then XHTML.
@Stephen_PhilbinOct 28.2006 — #Actually, serving a page in XHTML without extending it can serve a purpose. It's just not a very common purpose and is unlikely to outweigh the problems you will have with certain browsers unless you have a limited and known audience. That being that you could have a standard web page wich users could effortlessy use in the same old familiar way, but can also be just as easily accessed and used by remote XML processors.
Just though it was worth a mention. I'd still go with HTML in the main for now though. It far less hassle.