W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2010

[Bug 8321] change controller for HTML media type

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:35:16 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Nwlts-0002E7-0S@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8321


Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-
                   |                            |iua.no




--- Comment #9 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-03-31 00:35:15 ---
(In reply to comment #6)

> but W3C do need to make sure to come up with a consistent story
> regarding the use of text/html. For example, HTML5 doesn't say anything about
> XHTML 1.1, while XHTML 1.1 does mention the text/html media type. Obviously
> something needs to be fixed. Imho, the text/html should only be defined in the
> HTML5 specification.

Perhaps it is only a choice of words but ...

 XHTML 1.1 does not mention 'text/html'. [1]

And also:
 Part of the "consistent story" has to be  I suppose  RDFa, whose DTD is
based on XHTML1.1 and which 
   also is "touted" by the W3.org as the big thing  right now, and docs with
the RDFa doctype are, 
   realistically, often served as text/html. 
 The XHTML1.1. spec itself purports to be a XHTML 1.1. document - but is
served as 'text/html'
    Since for ever? 
 Right now, the W3 Validator considers lang="*" as valid in XHTML 1.1.
documents  [3]
   (I don't know for how long.) and the XHTML2 WG plans to make lang="*" valid.

The current, material differences between XHTML1.1. and XHTML1.0 according to
XHTML1.1 itself, are: [2]

1) "the lang attribute has been removed in favor of the xml:lang attribute"
2) "On the a and map elements, the name attribute has been removed in favor of
the id" 
3) "The "ruby" collection of elements has been added (as defined in [RUBY])"

Of which only RUBY is a real difference and the only place where XHTML1.1.
possibly is stepping on the feet of HTML5 (depending on the outcome in HTML5
itself! )

To make lang="*" valid in XHTML 1.1. documents seems more like acknowleding the
spirit of HTML5, than the opposite.

But perhaps the problem could be explained better, somewhere? Except with
regard to RUBY,  I wonder what the problem is. E.g. I don't think that
XHTML1.1. plus MathML should be placed in the same category as XHTML1.1.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11#a_changes
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2010Mar/0039


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 00:35:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 31 March 2010 00:35:30 GMT