W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2006

Re: XHTML 1.0 served as text/html

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:34:19 +0000
Message-ID: <45770D2B.6030201@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, david@djwhome.demon.co.uk, jkorpela@cs.tut.fi, karl@w3.org, link@pobox.com, www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org



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.
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 18:35:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT