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

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

From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 19:53:22 -0400
Message-ID: <6b9c91b20709021653o72e7bdbfgeb4f5648f8a39302@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

On 8/30/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 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 spec already allows a few xmlisms in HTML5, but since using those
xmlisms makes the document look like XHTML, the MUST requirement seems
to contradict if you really think about it.

FWIW, the following comes to my mind.

XHTML5 documents that do not also conform to HTML5 must be served with
an xml mime type.

XHTML5 documents that also conform to HTML5 should be served with an
xml mime type, but may be served as text/html.

I guess the spec should be extra clear that it's not ruining things
for those that know what they're doing, can conform to both and know
what effects the mime type has on clients.

-- 
Michael
Received on Sunday, 2 September 2007 23:53:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC