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

Re: Removing XML decl (Re: validator/htdocs header.html,1.50,1.51)

From: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:46:58 +0200
Message-Id: <B9C7F8FB-8DB6-4A4C-8CA5-59078235ED96@gmx.de>
Cc: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>


Am 20.07.2007 um 15:52 schrieb David Dorward:

>
> On 20 Jul 2007, at 11:51, Sierk Bornemann wrote:
>> header.html:
>> <!--#if expr="${IELegacy}" --><!--#else --><?xml version="1.0"  
>> encoding="utf-8"?>
>> <!--#endif --><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict// 
>> EN"
>>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
>
> If there is no XML declaration, then XML parsers, IIRC, are  
> supposed to assume XML 1.0 and UTF-8 or -16 (depending on the BOM,  
> if present).

If an XML parser is to be applied at all and not a SGML parser,  
depending on which MIME type is served...
But that's another hot discussion...

> What's the point of adding the XML declaration under any  
> circumstances short of changing output language or encoding?

For instance to be as compliant and close to the XHTML 1.0  
Recommendation as possible?
Remember: Serving a XHTML 1.0 document as "text/html" is a "MAY"  
whereas serving it as "application/xhtml+xml" (and so serving it as  
XML) is a "SHOULD".
"SHOULD" has a stronger meaning than "MAY" (in contrast: "SHOULD NOT"  
has a weaker meaning than "MUST NOT").

If the official W3C documents (in this case the reference validator!)  
even don't follow their own recommendations and specifications -- why  
should the rest of the world do that?

But that's also another hot discussion...

I only wanted to make a proposal with the SSI instructions above.

Sierk

-- 
Sierk Bornemann
email:            sierkb@gmx.de
WWW:              http://sierkbornemann.de/
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 15:47:15 GMT

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