- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:16:19 -0500
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- CC: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>, "www-validator@w3.org Community" <www-validator@w3.org>
olivier Thereaux wrote: > The other is the question of (conditionally) serving XHTML 1.1 as > text/html. The spec says SHOULD NOT. I say "well, if the spec says > SHOULD NOT, then you should not" and I add that I don't see a good > reason to do it. The validator issues a warning when you do. That's > the proper behaviour for a SHOULD NOT. > So... where exactly is the problem? > If you want to do something a spec says you SHOULD NOT do, because you > think there's a good enough reason, it's your choice. But don't come > complaining if a conformance checker catches you doing it, and issues > a warning about it. Actually, I beg to differ. Neither the previous Recommendation of XHTML 1.1 [1] nor the current Editors Draft of XHTML 1.1 [2] says you SHOULD NOT send XHTML 1.1 as text/html. If you are referring to the informative note that was written by Masayasu [3] some years ago... that's not normative. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531 [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/xhtml11 [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 15:16:50 UTC