- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:14:59 +0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli writes: > Tab Atkins Jr., Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:36:42 -0600: > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Leif Halvard Silli > > <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > > > > > So, with HTML5 we get two kinds of text/HTML: "real" text/HTML and > > > XHTML text/HTML. The latter gives us much more freedom than HTML5. > > > > The latter does not exist. If a file is served with the text/html > > mimetype, it is an HTML document, and is processed according to HTML > > rules. If it is served with one of the xml mimetypes, it is an XML > > document, and is processed according to XML rules. That is all. > > There is no longer any such thing as "XHTML served as text/html". > > The W3 validator allows me to validate a XHTML document served as > text/HTML. The validator isn't the canonical source of what is permitted; where the validator and a spec differ at least one of them is buggy. > However, unless the W3C Validator is changed to behave the same > draconian way, then there is no problem what so ever in serving XHTML > as text/HTML. That UAs then will treat is as text/HTML is of course > clear - and also the intent. When content is being served in a way which will cause all conforming user-agents to treat it as one thing, how is it useful to check its validation as something else? If I'm sending somebody a PostScript document, knowing that she will attempt to print it, checking whether the file happens to be valid Perl syntax is completely irrelevant. Regardless, a change in W3C Validator behaviour cannot affect what is permitted in HTML5. Smylers
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 16:02:25 UTC