On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 00:42 -0400, Mark Baker wrote: > Hixie writes; > > > This isn't hypothetical; it is the situation we are in today with XHTML > > > documents sent as text/html. UAs cannot use XML parsers to parse these > > > XHTML-sent-as-text/html documents, even if they could find a way to detect > > > them, because a huge fraction of such documents are ill-formed and would > > > thus render *worse* in new UAs than in legacy UAs. > > I don't understand why this is an issue. The authoritative metadata > finding makes it clear that the media type determines how the document > is to be interpreted, and nothing in RFC 2854 (text/html) or the HTML > family of specifications suggests that running a text/html document > through an XML parser would yield anything which meaningfully > represents what the sender was trying to convey. Perhaps you missed this? [[ 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. ]] -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:44:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:42 GMT