W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2002

RE: Is this legal XHTML 1.1?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:07:52 +0000 (GMT)
To: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
Cc: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0212131905390.21095-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Jelks Cabaniss wrote:
> 
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> > > But what about a valid XHTML 1.1 document that displays fine even
> > > in Netscape 4?
> > 
> > Since no valid XHTML 1.1 document could ever be sent as text/html, 
> > that will never happen.
> 
> ???  Say you have a valid XHTML 1.1 document.  You can *prove* it's
> valid -- by running it through a validator.  Now you decide to "publish"
> it, and because the majority of UAs out there are IEx + some Netscape
> 4's (and you don't want to mess with UA sniffing), you serve it as
> text/html from your web server.  And lo and behold, it displays fine in
> Netscape 4.  So what do you mean, "that will never happen"?  
> 
> Content negotiation != content model.

I take a more holistic approach to validity.

Since changing the MIME type can, for instance, change the charset of the
document, and thus change its validity, it is no stretch to claim that the
MIME type of the document has some effect on its validity. And since no
spec allows XHTML 1.1 to be sent as text/html, that would, by taking this
holistic approach, make the document invalid.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 13 December 2002 14:17:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:53 GMT