W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2007

Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:20:23 -0500
Message-ID: <46300C67.7020404@aptest.com>
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
CC: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>, "www-validator@w3.org Community" <www-validator@w3.org>

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
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 02:20:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:24 GMT