W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2000

RE: Authors response2: The Future Of XHTML

From: <JOrendorff@ixl.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:29:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CD8E2CDBC6D0D111ACB900805FBBD97E0263047A@memntsxchange.mem.ixl.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
> "It just takes up extra bytes, so we left it out. "
> Good idea. But only for UTF-8 you say? How come?

Here's how it breaks down.

If you use some other encoding than UTF-8 or UTF-16,
your XML document must specify that you're doing so.

Read the XML spec for more.

> "The <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> PI is
> optional."
> Why is it included in the example of a minimalist
> XHTML document then! Surely 'minimalist' would have
> that line removed [...]

The use of the word "minimalist" doesn't mean it's the
smallest possible document that would validate as XHTML.
That would proclude all content and whitespace.

Minimalism is an attitude, not a quantifiable absolute.

Or, more concisely, "get a life"  ;-)

[Q] > When is XHTML going to be a Recommendation?
[A] > When it's done.
> Oh, don't I deserve more than that!

Relax.  It's not a revolutionary change; these things
take time; we all want W3C to get it right.

> I think I am probably wrong on this matter though.
> Still, W3Cs DTDs are all text/plain though (and with
> the extension .dtd).

According to RFC 2376, "XML Media Types", it is correct
to publish a DTD as text/xml or application/xml content.


The RFC also has some interesting things to say about
the character set.  It all seems kind of weird to me.

Jason Orendorff
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 20:30:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:54 UTC