? PunBB isn't using XML, so you're not using the advantages of XHTML.
XHTML is a specification of a document type in XML.
So, yes, it does.
XHTML 1.0 (this specification) is the first document type in the XHTML family. It is a reformulation of the three HTML 4 document types as applications of XML 1.0 [XML]. It is intended to be used as a language for content that is both XML-conforming and, if some simple guidelines are followed, operates in HTML 4 conforming user agents.
-------------------------------------------------------
? It needs more code. Compare an XHTML page to the smaller HTML page. The difference is more than 2 kilobytes, and that will be more on other pages. I thought you didn't want to have huge HTML pages?
as soon as you style the output of your pages to look the same in all modern browsers, the difference is dramatic, but not in the way that you propose.
the power of xhtml + css is well documented and really without argument these days.
-------------------------------------------------------
? You aren't using it the right way; XHTML should have the MIME type "application/xhtml+xml" and now that's "text/html". But you shouldn't use "application/xhtml+xml" either, because some browsers don't accept it.
from the top of this page you're looking at right now...
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>PunBB.org Forums / Why XHTML?</title>and from the page at the w3.org you linked
This document summarizes the best current practice for using various Internet media types for serving various XHTML Family documents. In summary, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents, and the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents. 'application/xml' and 'text/xml' MAY also be used, but whenever appropriate, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used rather than those generic XML media types.
so, there's nothing wrong with 'text/html' for xhtml 1.0 strict.
what's wrong with the way it's implemented here?