W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Empty span/div tags in RDFa pages

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:41:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4AE6F888.3080708@gmx.de>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 18:40 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Which of course is caused by the fact that you simply can't serve
>> XHTML as text/html. The media type is authoritative, so recipients
>> will treat it as HTML.
> 
> I think this is something that is often overstated.
> 
> RFC 2854 notes that "different versions [of HTML] are distinguishable by
> the DOCTYPE declaration contained within them", so -- assuming that
> XHTML is a "version" of HTML, whatever that means -- it is not incorrect
> behaviour to detect an XHTML DOCTYPE and perform version-specific
> parsing on the content.

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854#section-2> states:

    Published specification:
       The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations;
       the latest published version is [HTML401].  In addition, [XHTML1]
       defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML
       4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.

So there's really nothing in there that would allow to use a different 
parser than then one for text/html.

> I realise that many popular user agents (especially desktop browsers) do
> not do this, but that doesn't make it wrong to do so.

I believe it is wrong to do so, and that all desktop browsers get *this* 
one right.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 13:42:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 13:42:07 GMT