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

Re: extensions

From: Benjamin Niemann <pink@odahoda.de>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:22:27 +0200
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <f3m0k3$nl9$1@sea.gmane.org>

Hello,

William Breathitt Gray wrote:

> Is the file extension "xhtml" required, as part of the xhtml strict
> specifications?
> 
> Examples:
> 
> anyfile.htm
> somepage.html
> markup.xhtml
> 
> Is "markup.xhtml" the only item in the list which is xhtml strict
> compliant? Or is the extension not important?

There are no constraits on the suffix, you are free to choose any filename.
More correctly any URI, when we are talking about the web - as long as the
URI is valid, which is beyond the scope of the (X)HTML specs.

The content-type is important. For XHTML documents it must be
application/xhtml+xml (or text/html, if is it XHTML 1.0 App. C conforming).
If you are using static files on your webserver and no special server
configuration, then the server will probably send 'application/xhtml+xml'
only for .xhtml files. Thus, if anyfile.htm contains XHTML 1.1, it would
end up invalid. But this could easily be changed without changing the URI
by tuning the server config.


HTH

-- 
Benjamin Niemann
Email: pink at odahoda dot de
WWW: http://pink.odahoda.de/
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 08:31:30 GMT

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