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: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:33:59 +0200
To: <neil.whiteley@tag2.net>, <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050622173115.SM04528@Inbox>

Yes, and the same is for xhtml 1.0. For application/xhtml+xml you need the xml prolog and change of language must be like xml:Lang="xx". If served as text/html there is no need of xml prolog and change of language must be lang="xx" xml:Lang="xx". 
So at least xhtml is sgml-based in all cases, but if served as application is also xml-based.
All depends of content-negotiation, see also w3c  internationalization activity.
This means also that we cannot apply two different criteria.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Neil Whiteley"<neil.whiteley@tag2.net>
    Inviato: 22/06/05 23.18.57
    A: "Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com"<Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
    Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions    from     last 2 days)
    Hi 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.
    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:
    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.
    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 
    Neil Whiteley

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 21:34:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:54 UTC