W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: let authors choose text/html or application/xhtml+xml (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:05:26 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A35993F3-72EE-450E-AB9E-003E80D6D66A@apple.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Aug 30, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Regarding this paragraph:
> "XHTML documents (XML documents using elements from the HTML  
> namespace)
> that use the new features described in this specification and that are
> served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME  
> type
> such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not be  
> served
> as text/html."
> XHTML documents served as text/html result in interoperable behavior
> in typical cases, so that constraint is too strong. Please change
> it to "SHOULD be sent..." and "SHOULD NOT be served...".

The HTML serialization has enough allowances to enable documents that  
are conforming in both classic and XML syntax, such as allowing the  
<foo /> minimized syntax on void elements. This aligns pretty well  
with the set of XHTML documents that can safely be served as text/ 
html. Therefore I think the HTML serialization adequately covers this  
use case and the conformance requirement should stand.

However, perhaps it could be made more clear that some documents might  
be both conforming XHTML5 and conforming classic syntax HTML5, and may  
therefore be sent as either text/html or application/xhtml+xml.

Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 02:05:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC