W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 2001

Re: XHTML 1.0: Appendix C normative?

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:22:33 +0200
To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <3369tt4pnj5g1hb60q2fv7ffplnhpuf9r1@4ax.com>
* Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
>Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Delivering XHTML 1.0 as text/html is a "may", following the guidelines
>> isn't.
>
>That's _your_ opinion, not the HTML Working Group's.

Well, it's what I read out of XHTML 1.0 and RFC 2854 and in fact, there
is no 'may' in XHTML 1.0. If it is not intended that only documents
following the guidelines are allowed to be labeled as text/html, but it
is recommended to follow the guidelines if you want to label the
document as text/html, the specs should say so, for example

>Following the "first" Last Call comments, the "second" Last Call
>Working Draft of XHTML 1.0 said in section 5.1 [2] as follows:
>
>   [...] Additionally, since one of the aims of XHTML is to allow
>   migration from existing HTML user agents to XHTML user agents,
>   XHTML documents may be delivered using the Internet media type
>   text/html. In this case, it is recommended that the documents
>   follow the guidelines in Appendix C to decrease the chance of
>   document processing failure.
>
>It is _recommended_ to follow the guidelines in Appendix C, which
>is informative, and no more.

XHTML 1.0 says

  However, XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in
  Appendix C, "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the
  Internet Media Type "text/html", as they are compatible with most HTML
  browsers. This document makes no recommendation about MIME labeling of
  other XHTML documents.

Maybe due to lack of english skills I read this as

  * there are two types of XHTML documents, those following the
    guidelines and those which do not

  * documents that follow the guidelines may be labeled as text/html,
    documents that do not follow must not and the spec does not
    recommend any other MIME type for those documents

I wonder how obvious it would be to read the above as

  XHTML documents following the guidelines may be labeled as text/html,
  documents that do not, err, may be also labeled as text/html

RFC 2854 supports my interpretation, section 2 reads

  In addition, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is
  compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.

This implies to me, documents that are not part of this profile must not
be labeled as text/html, whatever the intention of that sentence was.

>Due to the "first" Advisory Committee review, XHTML 1.0 had to be
>returned to the Working Draft status, and section 5.1 had to
>be changed [4], but the intention behind the "text/html" portion
>hadn't changed.  Appendix C is informative.
>
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/xhtml1-19990505/#media
>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-xhtml1-19990824/#media
>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xhtml1-19991124/#media

I wonder why it had to be changed, if the intention is that *all* XHTML
1.0 documents may be labeled as text/html and following the guidelines
is a recommendation (as the LCWD states), it doesn't do much harm if the
specification says just this. What's up with this profile thing in RFC
2854, anyway? What profile? Strictly conforming XHTML 1.0 documents?
Thus, may I label non strictly conforming XHTML documents with
text/html? What about XHTML 1.1 documents?

Please clarify at least some of these issues in XHTML 1.0 SE.

best wishes,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 18:23:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:49 GMT