- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:16:21 -0800
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- CC: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:18 AM, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>> Sorry, but I don't get this "clean content" thing. >> I don't want to start a long flame war here, as I felt I had a good chance >> to express my feelings at the F2F, but I'll be glad to clarify what I >> intended (speaking for myself, not the TAG). Let's start with some things >> that I think we all agree. In particular, HTML5 as drafted provides that >> browsers will accept quite a range of input as text/html. > > The XML spec also accepts quite a range of input as text/xml. Most of > it is invalid XML though. Same thing for HTML5. HTML5 is a bit laxer > though due to what it has inherited from the HTML4 specification. I.e. > I don't think we want to make something that was valid HTML4 invalid > HTML5. At least in general. Actually, this was poor wording on my part. Here is why I should say: Browsers will take any random stream of data server as text/html and display *something* yes. I'm sure we've all run into a binary file such as a GIF file being served as text/html and seen nothing but garbage on the screen. This does not affect what HTML5 considers valid though. HTML5 is very strict in what it considers valid. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 11:21:48 UTC