- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:54:42 +0100
- To: www-validator@w3.org
On 21 Apr 2008, at 18:02, Dean Edridge wrote: > > Put it this way; If I had to write a tutorial on how to use XHTML, I > would not want to have to include a line that says: "...but wait, > there's more, you'll have to add this extra line of code so people > can validate your XHTML pages on the W3C Validator." What extra line of code is that? As mentioned previously, the validator will happily validate, in XML mode, XHTML documents. If they have a known XHTML Doctype then it will do so when they are served as text/html. If the spec says "MAY be served as text/html" then it won't even give a warning. > I think people are reading too much into this, it's just an Accept > header, it's not a hack. Other high quality validators have an > Accept header [1]. I don't know why the idea sounds so novel/evil/ > unreasonable etc... It is an opportunity to introduce bugs and any change in behaviour could cause problems by people who have developed with the current behaviour in mind[1]. That's two reasons against, now what are the reasons in favour? I don't think anyone has provided a use case where it would provide a benefit (it is a long thread though, so I might have missed one, please point it out if that is the case). The reasons against might be minute, but the reasons for appear to be non-existent. [1] This type of thing shouldn't happen, but sometimes does anyway. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 18:55:21 UTC