W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)

From: Neil Whiteley <neil.whiteley@tag2.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:18:57 +0100
To: <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAIDllaWVPlkuX1m7OekKwzMKDAAAQAAAAuZjnyix4xUubrmiSUjNldAEAAAAA@tag2.net>

Hi Becky,

<becky>
To use XHTML 1.1 correctly it should be served as application/xhtml+xml 
which I can not do if I want to reach a majority of users.   The W3C 
states that I should not serve XHTML 1.1[2] as text/html. So, perhaps my 
XHTML 1.1 can be made to pass validation with a customized DTD, but I'm 
still not really serving XHTML correctly according to the W3C.
</becky>

A lot depends on your interpretation of the document you refer to and
specifically the meaning of *SHOULD NOT* used in the summaries table. The
document "XHTML Media Types" specifically states that the terms used in the
document are to be read and understood as stated in RFC2119.

>From RFC2119:

<snip>
SHOULD NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
   there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
   particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
   implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
   before implementing any behavior described with this label.
</snip>

In other words you can serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html if you have good reason.

I've had this conversation many times and I still can't convince many people
even though it is clearly stated in the referenced documents.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary
[2] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt 

Regards,

Neil Whiteley
Tag2
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 21:19:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC