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.

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2376.txt

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT