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

Re: XHTML 1.0 served as text/html

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 07:02:37 +0900
Message-Id: <B13C8E14-B499-4346-9A66-7E361E18B4A5@w3.org>
Cc: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, david@djwhome.demon.co.uk, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, jkorpela@cs.tut.fi, link@pobox.com, www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

Le 6 déc. 2006 à 06:42, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>> 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
> Note that in HTML5/XHTML5, any content sent as text/html is assumed  
> to be
> HTML5, and must be checked as such, and any content sent as XHTML5 is
> assumed to be XML, and must be checked as such. You can find an
> HTML5/XHTML5 validator (undergoing active development) here:
>    http://hsivonen.iki.fi/validator/html5/

Wrong address. The message is

Le 6 déc. 2006 à 03:19, Philip TAYLOR a écrit :
> 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.

So in this case, it has nothing to do with Web Apps 1.0

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 22:02:54 GMT

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