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

(unknown charset) Re: XHTML Syntax Served as text/html (Was: Decentralized poetry markup (language))

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:17:42 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Cc: (unknown charset) public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100120181742213916.028f4355@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Smylers, Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:14:59 +0000:
> Leif Halvard Silli writes:
>> Tab Atkins Jr., Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:36:42 -0600:
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Leif Halvard Silli:
>>> 
>>>> So, with HTML5 we get two kinds of text/HTML: "real" text/HTML and
>>>> XHTML text/HTML. The latter gives us much more freedom than HTML5.
>>> 
>>> The latter does not exist.  If a file is served with the text/html
>>> mimetype, it is an HTML document, and is processed according to HTML
>>> rules.  If it is served with one of the xml mimetypes, it is an XML
>>> document, and is processed according to XML rules.  That is all.
>>> There is no longer any such thing as "XHTML served as text/html".
>> 
>> The W3 validator allows me to validate a XHTML document served as
>> text/HTML.
> 
> The validator isn't the canonical source of what is permitted; where the
> validator and a spec differ at least one of them is buggy.

If we are permitted to serve XHTML as text/HTML, then it makes sense be 
able to validate such documents as well.

>> However, unless the W3C Validator is changed to behave the same 
>> draconian way, then there is no problem what so ever in serving XHTML 
>> as text/HTML. That UAs then will treat is as text/HTML is of course 
>> clear - and also the intent.
> 
> When content is being served in a way which will cause all conforming
> user-agents to treat it as one thing, how is it useful to check its
> validation as something else?

Quite. Because, as you know, XHTML and HTML are quite close to each 
others.

> If I'm sending somebody a PostScript document, knowing that she will
> attempt to print it, checking whether the file happens to be valid Perl
> syntax is completely irrelevant.

Absolutely. But that example is very far from the real world situation 
that we talk about.

> Regardless, a change in W3C Validator behaviour cannot affect what is
> permitted in HTML5.

My point was merely that if HTML5 refuses to become more relaxed about 
extensions, then there exist another, parallel technology - namely 
XHTML served as text/HTML.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 17:18:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:00 GMT