W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > March 2010

Re: [VE][html5] XHTML5 content-type value

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:42:21 +0200
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DA238957-7192-423B-BFAC-9B62C76062A7@iki.fi>
To: Cecil Ward <cecil@cecilward.com>
On Mar 1, 2010, at 15:18, Cecil Ward wrote:

>> "If you use http-equiv="content-type", then it must be text/html and may
> include a character encoding. You must not use this if you are writing an
> XML document."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#attr-meta-http-equiv-content-type
> [I realise that this is off-topic for this list, so apologies in advance
> ...]
> but are you guys aware of whether the above is set in stone now for XHTML5?

It's safe to assume that it's set in stone. Browsers that support XHTML have dispatched on the HTTP Content-Type header for the last decade, so it's unlikely to change now.

> This seems an unfortunate "must", as requiring XHTML users to reformat
> content and serve it selectively from servers (rather than just being able
> to use an XHTML 1.0-BC style mechanism with only http headers changing
> according to UA capabilities) seems a real pity, a hassle with no real
> benefit. Saying that XML UAs can and should simply ignore certain legacy
> bits seems to be free of harm and worked well with XHTML 1.0 BC.

If you have been previously serving XHTML 1.0 Appendix C content as text/html, it's easy to migrate to HTML5. If you've used the strict doctype, you don't even need to change the doctype. HTML5 allows XHTML-isms like <br/> and <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> in order to make it easy to migrate from XHTML-1.0-as-text/html. 

Henri Sivonen
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 14:42:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18:00 UTC