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

(unknown charset) Re: Understanding the "applicable specifications" clause (was: Re: Decentralised extensibility idea (ISSUE-41))

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:28:44 +0100
To: (unknown charset) "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: (unknown charset) "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100121192844073635.afcafe5f@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tab Atkins Jr., Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:00:32 -0600:

> It doesn't mutate, because it isn't, by itself, an XHTML file.  It's a
> bag of bits.  It can be interpreted as XHTML, or HTML, or plaintext,
> or a bitmap for that matter.

Interpretation happens at many places/levels: author, OS, editor, Web 
server.

> Files don't carry around an essential
> identity, they obtain one when you

Indeed, humans also interpret what files are.

> choose to interpret them in a particular way.
>
> That's why there was never any such thing as "XHTML served as
> text/html".

So there never were something like "SGML-inspired-HTML served as 
text/HTML" either then? OK. I can always buy the argument if you put it 
like that.

>  It was always HTML, albeit with some slightly invalid
> syntax inspired by the XHTML syntax which browsers tolerated/ignored.

I thought you said it was a bag of bits?

Anyway: The syntax of such a file doesn't suddenly degrade from /being/ 
XHTML to being simply /inspired/ by XHTML, just because it is served as 
text/HTML.

> If they served it as application/xhtml+xml, then it would have been
> XHTML.

Even at that point it is still only a bag of bits. For example: IE 
might perform a sniff and interpret it as text/HTML.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 18:29:18 GMT

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