Browser Support for XHTML?

eLoco asks: "What support do today's browsers have for XHTML? Maybe a better question would be: what support do the major browsers in current use have for formatting/display of XML with DTD defined? I don't have any browser prejudice per se (I use MSIE, Mozilla, Safari/KHTML, and Opera depending on the system I am working on and my mood), but I am primarily interested in the browsers with greater 'market share,' since my main reason for asking is this: If at least the "main" browsers in current use have decent support (vague, I know) for XHTML/XML rendering, why haven't we all converted over yet?" While it doesn't cover all browsers out there, this chart serves as a good starting point. For those of you working with application/xhtml+xml files, what issues have you run into when serving up your files to various browsers?

Comments

Backward Compatability

[dJCL]

I would love to code XHTML strict, but there is the problem of my users, you see, they are not technical, they don't all upgrade thier browser when they can, even when they are told too. I have to code in many ways to the lowest common denominator, then add or modify features for the better browsers and try to avoid breaking things.

If you're on a controlled intranet or something similar and can control the browser used, your set, but I wish the real world was like that.

This is one reason that I love templates thou, I have a work in progress template for my main site that is XHTML strict, so browsers that support it can have it.

Enjoy!

cliff: the chart is lousy.

[Trelane]

The chart you supplied is lousy. Either it's vastly out of date, or it's deliberately slanted against non-IE browsers.

For one, it simply lists an x for what is apparently full support, an (s) for somewhat supported, and nothing for no support. This is a terrible way of comparing things, since different browsers have different levels of support and different bugs in their implementation. CSS2 support is notoriously problematic, iirc. Not to mention that having "DHTML" and "JavaScript" support categories after this x/(s)/ fashion is fairly ludicrous. What about the various W3C CSS and DOM levels, and even the various components within DOM level 2?

But the most blatant problem with the table is the fact that it covers Internet Explorer 6, Netscape 6, Netscape 4, and Opera 3.02(!), amongst others. While IE6 is current, NS4 and Opera 3.02 certainly are not! Not to mention that NS7, while quite nice, is lacking a lot from the cutting-edge Mozilla 1.3 and 1.4 versions.

Anyone have a better comparison chart? Please post 'em below!

Re:Thoughts on IE and Moz

[JimDabell]

Mozilla's support would be OK, but it suffers from the same overly nitpicky irritation as it does with HTML+CSS: it stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that a file could possibly be XML or whatever unless the MIME type is correct.

Stubborn? It's a required part of the HTTP specification. Every browser other than Internet Explorer gets this right.

Given that even fewer servers, particularly those run by ISPs for their personal subscribers rather than run by companies for themselves, get the MIME type right for X* than they do for HTML+CSS, Moz is out of the race as a serious contender no matter how good its standards support may be.

Granted, there are a few wonky servers out there, but they aren't anywhere near as widespread as you make out. If the server you are on is serving your files incorrectly, and you cannot fix this yourself, then complain. You are getting a substandard service.

I agree that standards are important, but they are only a means to an end.

If Mozilla and other browsers do the exact opposite of what the public specifications require, and instead blindly copy Internet Explorer, then they have essentially given control of that specification to Microsoft. How can this be a good thing?