W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > February 2010

Re: XHTML file extensions

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:06:59 -0800
Message-ID: <7d8262d2644f360981967fbbac0397c0.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "James Hopkins" <james@idreamincode.co.uk>
Cc: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

>> The current filename format limits file extensions to three letters,
>> which has given us
>> .htm (a common and widely-recognized alternative to .html), and .xht
>> (uncommon). The
>> reason for 3-letter file extensions was that, at the time the format
>> was devised, some
>> platforms could not handle 4-letter extensions.
>>
>> I'm wondering if it would help testers if we changed .xht to .xhtml
>> or .xml, and if it's
>> possible to do so now without limiting our testing audience. (It's
>> easy for us to send the
>> correct MIME type on the servers either way. The question is whether
>> it would help people
>> writing and running tests locally, and if so, whether it would not
>> interfere with less
>> common test environments.)
>
> The majority of test cases that I submit for inclusion in the
> testsuite, test the implementation of IE8. Since IE8 doesn't support
> application/xhtml+xml, i have to first devise a test using text/html
> (by using the .htm or .html file extension), and then rename them
> to .xht, since this is a current requirement of test case submission.
>
> So to answer your original question, no, I don't have any issue with
> limiting or derestricting types of file extension, other than the fact
> that a > 3-letter extension seems to me a more widely used format
> across the web.
>

Hello all,

Just like James, I don't have any issue with limiting or derestricting
types of file extension.

> The issue I have however, is that testers are currently restricted to
> submitting .xht (or .xhtml type files, as is being proposed here)
> files. Can it not be possible for testers to submit .html files, with
> its inherent text/html format?


Personally, I would prefer to be able to submit testcases with .html
file extension and with its inherent text/html format. It would ease my
testing time+efforts, it would speed up things a bit, especially since
IE8 browser does not support application/xhtml+xml.

But I can live with the current system.


> Does the issue with restricting test
> cases to .xht lie with well-formedness?


I use HTML validator (0.8.6.1 on Windows and 0.8.5.8 on KDE) add-on from
Marc Gueury ( http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ ) so I know
immediately if a testcase (or any webpage) is not well-formed, has
validation errors (and how many of them, each identified with a line
number) or even problems/warnings which HTML Tidy can detect+report.
HTML validator add-on from Marc Gueury works offline and on local files.

regards, Gérard
-- 
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/

CSS 2.1 test suite (alpha 1; January 27th 2010):
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 15:07:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:52:01 GMT