Re: Re-registration of text/html

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 
> But, can I ask you, as co-chair of this WG, what the problem with such 
> an development is supposed to be? Not the '"interesting" Last Call' 
> thing, but by allowing XHTML1.1 to be served as 'text/html'? I bet that 
> most of XHTML1.1 on the web today *is* served as 'text/html', so it 
> should be very close to reality to allow it.

Let's be precise.

A noticeable percentage of the web is served with an XHTML doctype, and 
including a xmlns attribute on the html element that matches the 
namespace defined by the XHTML specification.

I will further observe that a substantial portion of such content is:

   1) Served with the text/html MIME type
   2) Not valid according to the XHTML specification
   3) Not well formed according to the XML specification.

Given this situation, a number of distinct questions can be considered.

(1) Does it make any sense to call invalid, non-well-formed, content 
served as text/html as XHTML 1.1?

(2) Does it make any sense for two specifications using the same MIME 
type to assigning different meaning to the same document?  Co-chair or 
not, as a member of this working group, I personally would object to 
such a situation persisting.

A final set of observations:

My weblog is served as valid XHTML5 to Opera, Firefox, and Webkit.  It 
is served as valid HTML5 to IE and Lynx.  The same content is served in 
both cases.

Choosing a different MIME type has a very real consequence in each of 
these five consumers.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 23:29:39 UTC