- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:39:14 +0300
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 30, 2008, at 11:31, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> 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. > > Thanks, Henri : would it be possible (i.e., easy) > to partition the statistics on the basis of DOCTYPE ? I didn't record this data. I did, however, record data about the document mode (quirks, standards, almost standards), which is a pretty good indicator of Transitional vs. Strict but doesn't say anything about XHTML 1.0 vs. HTML 4.01. I also have output of an HTML 4.01 Transitional validation run without this data waiting for further analysis. I'll record this data if I rerun the study. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 06:39:55 UTC