Lets see how those sites are using XHTML then. I'll confess I didn't check the content type of every one of them, but I only noticed one being served as application/xhtml+xml.
I also overlooked syntax errors. No center element in Strict? If its well formed, then it will pass the XML parser, so I won't complain about it here.
Of the others only 5 looked like they would function if treated as XHTML instead of tag soup (and I only checked the front pages, there could be errors on the inner pages).
The others were either not well-formed, so would cause XML parsers to throw an error, or commented out their JavaScript in an effort to protect Netscape 2 and co from rendering it by accident, so that it would get discarded by the XML parser.
Which makes about 80% of the "examples of XHTML not being a failure" being examples of pages that would fail if not treated as tag soup.
Wikipedia - not well-formed
Twitter - actually seems OK at a glance
Wordpress.com - actually seems OK at a glance
Blogger - comments out JavaScript so it would be hidden if treated as XHTML
digg - not well-formed, comments out JS
TechCrunch - not well-formed, comments out JS
Comment is Free - comments out JS
upcoming - not well-formed
Facebook - not well-formed
TypePad - comments out JS
LiveJournal - comments out JS
43things - not well-formed
Grazr - not well formed
37signals - not well formed
MeasureMap - actually looks OK
TUAW - not well-formed, comments out JS
Gizmodo - not well-formed, comments out JS
Skype - comments out JS
Adobe - not well-formed
BBC Backstage - not well-formed
TheyWorkForYou - not well-formed, comments out JS
Mashable - not well-formed, comments out JS
Rocketboom - not well-formed
Ze Frank - not well-formed
Jeremy Keith - served with correct content type!
Zeldman - not well-formed, comments out JS
A List Apart - actually seems OK at a glance
Thanks for that David. That wasn't quite my point (layered in snark though my post was). The idea that we should just give up on XHTML seems to be pervasive among a number of people. I'm not sure why. The case for not continuing down the XHTML path hasn't been made convincingly. The fact that people haven't implemented it very well is surely just a case for implementing it properly. Insert "throwing baby out with bath-water" reference here.
2007-03-13EDT20:43:06+00:00
#
The scope of the new working group includes continuing down the XHTML path as well as a tag soup version. I think this is just accepting the reality that tag soup is here for the foreseeable future, and any work done needs to account for that.
2007-03-13EDT21:22:48+00:00
#
