W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE-41: Facebook open graph protocol

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:17:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4BD0BCD8.3070108@intertwingly.net>
To: sroussey@network54.com
CC: Steven Roussey <sroussey@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 04/22/2010 05:08 PM, Steven Roussey wrote:
> For the next version of Firebug, I've made the doctype visible in the
> HTML view, and mark it red and with an error message (on hover) for
> sites that do the above. Essentially, the browser ignores the XHTML
> references and obeys the mime-type, and web page authors can go on for a
> while never knowing. Microsoft.com, ibm.com <http://ibm.com/>, and
> developer.mozilla.org <http://developer.mozilla.org/> all now get
> flagged with errors.

Can you explain what you mean by "above"?  None of microsoft.com, 
ibm.com, nor developer.mozilla.org use Facebook open graph protocol at 
the moment.

If you are referring to the xmlns attribute on the html element, this is 
conforming HTML5 markup.

> If it were not for the polyglot spec, I'd prefer to have XHTML docs root
> node be <xhtml> instead of <html> to make things clear. I was always
> unclear on the value of xhtml on the public facing internet, and found
> it difficult to find examples of real xhtml in the wild against which to
> test svg and mathml in firebug.


> If the doctype switched a text/html served file from html to xhtml it
> would likely match average authors' expectations as they are today. I'm
> sure that there is a long history on why this is not so, and the HTML5
> doctype no longer distinguishes between the two. And that is probably
> the most compatible way forward, as it will change the expectations of
> what the doctype means.

Try my site in IE7, IE8, and IE9.

> -steve--

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 21:17:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC