W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2002

Re: More on XHTML as text/html

From: Christopher Hoess <choess@stwing.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:19:35 -0500
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: ian@hixie.ch, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021127031935.GA2371@force.stwing.upenn.edu>

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 12:20:22PM -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> >>>Appendix C [says] the use of other XML namespaces is not valid in
> >>>XHTML 1.0 documents
> >>I covered this in my last email. Appendix C informative and it doesn't
> >>say that.
> >"Appendix C" there is an error for "Section 3.1.2", which does say 
> >that.
> It says they're not "strictly conforming".

Quoth Section 3.1 "This version of XHTML 1.0 provides a definition of 
strictly conforming XHTML 1.0 documents." Elements defined *by* XHTML 1.0 
may be used in documents with mixed namespaces, as described in Section 
3.1.2, but these are not XHTML 1.0 documents. They are *XHTML Family* 
documents, with their own DTDs. (Furthermore, XHTML 1.0 + namespaced 
content will not, AFAIK, be valid XHTML 1.0). Since the only form of XHTML 
permitted by RFC 2854 to be served as text/html is the Appendix C-defined 
subset of XHTML 1.0, and since documents conforming to one of the XHTML 
1.0 DTDs cannot include namespaces, it follows that content including 
namespaces cannot be served as text/html.
> >RFC 2854 makes it mandatory that  XHTML-as-text/html follow the 
> >guidelines of Appendix C.
> Appendix C doesn't prohibit additional namespaces nor say documents 
> must be strictly conforming.

True. I simply intended to make the point that while Appendix C is 
declared to be informative, RFC 2854 makes it clear that the "profile" of 
XHTML 1.0 defined by Appendix C is considered by it to be the authority as 
to what subset of XHTML may be served as text/html.

Chris Hoess
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 22:19:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:16 UTC