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

RE: XHTML 1.0 served as text/html

From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:40:32 +0000
Message-ID: <BAY109-F291FEB5199DCABA6998A31B4DE0@phx.gbl>
To: P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk, ian@hixie.ch, david@djwhome.demon.co.uk, ot@w3.org, jkorpela@cs.tut.fi, karl@w3.org, link@pobox.com
Cc: www-validator@w3.org, www-html@w3.org

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/
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 20:40:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:23 GMT