[nathell]

It’s ironic that the very site in question, despite claiming XHTML compliance, is served as text/html instead of application/xhtml+xml, so the browser will never parse it as XML.

To quote [0]:

> All those “Valid XHTML 1.0!” links on the web are really saying “Invalid HTML 4.01!”.

Although the article is 20 years old now, so these days it’s actually HTML5.

Edit: Checked the other member sites. Only two are served as application/xhtml+xml.

[0]: https://webkit.org/blog/68/understanding-html-xml-and-xhtml/

[jraph]

And this makes the XML prolog invalid, because it's invalid to have it in HTML.

Not having it is XHTML compliant though, so it could just be removed.

[assimpleaspossi]

>>these days it’s actually HTML5.

There is no HTML5. It's just a buzzword. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/dev/introduction.html#is-this-h...?

[jraph]

That's a stretch. Your link says

> Is this HTML5?

> In short: Yes.

See also [1].

That HTML5 was used in marketing doesn't make the technical term disappear. HTML5 is a bit more precise than HTML, it refers to the living standard that's currently in use, as opposed to HTML 4.01 and the previous versions of HTML.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5