Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html

olivier Thereaux wrote:
> Are you begging to differ on the wording alone (on which I stand 
> corrected) or are you also suggesting that the validator should not 
> give a warning for not respecting the SHOULD recommendation in XHTML 
> 1.1's conformance section? What is the XHTML's working group stance on 
> the matter? 

Personally, I feel the validator should not raise an error if the 
content type differs.  For example, the OMA use a different media type 
for what is in essence the same markup language as XHTML Basic 1.1.  And 
that should be okay.  It could raise a warning, I suppose. 


The XHTML Working Group has taken no formal stance on your specific 
question.  I will have it put on the agenda for our next meeting (on 
Wednesday, 2 May).

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com