- From: Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:42:49 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Peter Foti (PeterF)" <PeterF@SystolicNetworks.com>, "'Nick Boalch'" <nick@fof.durge.org>, "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
No, it wasn't the parenthesis that I missed, but the "and send it as text/html"; if they do that, and don't tell the Validator in some other way that they are really trying to validator XHTML, then indeed the postulated outcomes could occur. But the solution, surely, is to tell the Validator that one is trying to validate XHTML, not HTML ... Philip Taylor, RHBNC -------- Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > > 1. Authors write invalid XHTML (or XHTML that makes other > > > assumptions that are only valid for tag soup or HTML UAs, and not > > > XHTML UAs), and send it as text/html. > > > > I am truly amazed by your findings. It would seem obvious > > to me that those sufficiently aware of XHTML to be interested in > > migrating to it would by definition have been those to whom > > validation was already second nature. > > Did you miss the parenthetical above? There are many gotchas to sending XHTML > as XHTML that a validator will _not_ catch (eg a validator will _not_ spot > commented out script or style, incorrectly cased style, issues with > non-namespace-aware DOM calls, etc). > > So part of the problem is that having your document validate is necessary but > not sufficient to ensure that things don't break horribly when you switch from > text/html to text/xml or application/xhtml+xml. > > Boris > -- > If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but > garbage. But this garbage, having passed through a > very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and none > dare criticize it.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 09:42:54 UTC