RE: XHTML 1.0 served as text/html

Hi,

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
>Forgive the multiplicity of named recipients, but
>I am very uncertain as to whom to address this :
>
>There has been a fairly protracted discussion recently
>concerning the pros and cons of serving XHTML documents
>as text/html  or as application/xhtml+xml, but I was more
>than a little surprised today to discover that when the
>W3C (HTML) validator is asked to validate
>
>	http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/
>
>it states that the (page) is "Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional"
>without issuing even a warning that it is being served as
>text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml.  Now it is
>clear from Section 5.1 of
>
>	http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
>
>that this is acceptable, yet
>
>	http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
>
>also states clearly that
>
>	"application/xhtml+xml SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents"
>
>My question is therefore : should not the validator issue
>a warning when this last guideline is ignored ?

The XHTML Media Types note is not normative. However, see:

   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1500

Regards,
Simon Pieters

_________________________________________________________________
Martin Stenmarck som ringsignal http://msn.cellus.se/