[Bug 8321] change controller for HTML media type

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 UTC