- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:11:47 +0300
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 30, 2008, at 11:03, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: > > > > Only text/html pages with > > response code 200 were considered. > > Those announced by HTTP as text/html, or those > with a valid HTML doctype (or both) ? The first > would allow a very large number of pseudo-XHTML > pages in ... Those had the http or https URI scheme (a promiscuous self-signing- accepting certificate handler was used for https), returned text/html as Content-Type and 200 as the response status. So yes, this set did contain pseudo-XHTML. But note that HTML5 makes the most common pseudo-XHTML talismans conforming and tree builder- level doctype errors didn't count. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2008 08:12:28 UTC