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

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:13:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4B99A35B.7030102@intertwingly.net>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> In other words: 
> So that it becomes possible to serve the same XHTML 1.1. document both 
> as text/html and as application/xhtml+xml, with the same semantics.

If you strike the words "XHTML 1.1", I agree with the above sentence.  I 
agree that there exists a useful subset of documents which can be served 
either as XHTML or as HTML and with substantially the same semantics.

What doesn't make sense to me is your insistence on labelling that such 
documents as XHTML when (a) the precise interpretation depends on the 
MIME type, and (b) overall differences in semantics for this subset of 
documents are negligible.

Be that as it may, I note a related discussion on the validator forum:


I can't help but wonder if one small change to HTML5 that would reduce 
this confusion, and yet would have zero inpact to browser vendors.  This 
change would be to change the definition of the xmlns attribute on the 
html element from a talisman to a trigger of a few additional, yet 
simple, validation checks.  To start with, it would trigger validation 
errors when elements are implicitly closed.  Other checks could also be 

A few notes: the intent is not to guarantee well-formedness, nor to 
change browser behavior, but merely to provide a means for someone who 
wishes to opt in to a more strict syntax to indicate their desire to do 
so.  This also clearly would have no impact on those who advocate the 
use of a more minimal syntax.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 02:14:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC