W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Comparing conformance requirements against real-world docs

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:39:14 +0300
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D06DF190-1507-4661-979B-E544FAE0F6B8@iki.fi>
To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>

On Aug 30, 2008, at 11:31, Philip TAYLOR wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> Those had the http or https URI scheme (a promiscuous self-signing- 
>> accepting certificate handler was used for https), returned text/ 
>> html as Content-Type and 200 as the response status.
>> So yes, this set did contain pseudo-XHTML. But note that HTML5  
>> makes the most common pseudo-XHTML talismans conforming and tree  
>> builder-level doctype errors didn't count.
>
> Thanks, Henri : would it be possible (i.e., easy)
> to partition the statistics on the basis of DOCTYPE ?


I didn't record this data. I did, however, record data about the  
document mode (quirks, standards, almost standards), which is a pretty  
good indicator of Transitional vs. Strict but doesn't say anything  
about XHTML 1.0 vs. HTML 4.01.  I also have output of an HTML 4.01  
Transitional validation run without this data waiting for further  
analysis.

I'll record this data if I rerun the study.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 06:39:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:58 UTC