Re: XHTML 1.0 served as text/html

olivier Thereaux wrote:

> Also, as RFC2854 says, «XHTML1 defines a profile of use of XHTML which 
> is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.»

Is this true ?  If I have understood previous messages correctly
(I believe it is Jukka who has made this point before, but I
may be wrong), then the following has two entirely different
meanings depending as one is interpreting the document as XHTML
or as HTML :

	<meta name="..." content="..."  />

Is it not the case that this may appear /within/ the head
region if interpreted as XHTML, but /terminates/ the head region
if interpreted as HTML ?

>> My question is therefore : should not the validator issue
>> a warning when this last guideline is ignored ?
> 
> The plan I have is to have the validator issue a note, when finding 
> content served as text/html and matching the doctypes for XHTML 1.0, 
> suggesting to run the content through the HTML compatibility checker 
> (demo'd at [1]). 

Not convinced that a note is adequate : I really do believe
that this is (one of the few genuine) cases for a warning
(unlike "background-color" in CSS !).

 > Hopes this helps answering your questions.

As always, Olivier : many thanks.

** Phil.