W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Comparing conformance requirements against real-world docs

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:11:47 +0300
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5972928A-0388-47D2-BF6D-9F6909775174@iki.fi>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>

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
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2008 08:12:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:36 UTC