Re: Source XHTML docs served as "text/html"

Danny Ayers wrote:
> 
> (Source) XHTML documents served as "text/html" - may be treated as XML
> by a GRDDL-aware agent...?

Of course. Why not?


> I can't remember if this has come up already, either way I couldn't
> see anywhere in the docs it was covered. I've a feeling trying to deal
> with it normatively in the text might be a rathole because RFC 3023 is
> a bit ratty. But perhaps a test case is in order?

A test case for what?

> Although strictly speaking this seems to violate authoritative
> metadata,

How so?

Anyone can follow-your-nose from the text/html
media type to the XHTML spec...

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/
->
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt

"In addition, [XHTML1]
       defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML
       4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html."

> pragmatically it probably makes sense based on existing
> precedent (and use in the wild) -
> [[
> XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C,
> "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media
> Type "text/html" [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML
> browsers.
> ]]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#media
> 
> There are test cases nearby already:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/multipleRepresentations
> (note there's a typo in the <h1> of that doc)
> 
> Maybe have that served as both "application/xhtml+xml" as well as 
> "text/html"?

That wouldn't hurt anything, but I don't see what it would help.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2007 10:25:23 UTC