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

RE: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 13:28:49 -0700
To: "'Boris Zbarsky'" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701caf2da$e5acf470$b106dd50$@org>
Boris, please review again the definition for "polyglot" documents:
those that can be processed equally as XHTML and HTML, served
equally well as text/html and application/xhtml+xml.

You may not have a personal interest in serving the community
that wants to use such documents, e.g., to be able to interchange 
between XHTML and text/html but why are you insisting on preventing
those who want such a choice from having it?

It's glib to say that "they're just broken", but by what
measure are they "broken", exactly? Not meeting your personal


-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:49 AM
To: Leif Halvard Silli
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

On 5/13/10 10:42 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Example of a need: Gecko/Mozilla based WYSIWYG editors KompoZer, NVU
> and BlueGriffon do not respect a document's XHTML syntax unless
> is a specific XHTML DOCTYPE.

Even if the file has an XHTML mime type?  If so, they're just broken. 
If the file has an HTML MIME type, then "XHTML syntax" doesn't make

> XHTML5 doesn't have a specific XHTML doctype

But it does have a MIME type.

> One could say that XHTML5 specifications are allowed to create
> for use in text/html

If it's text/html, then XHTML5 has nothing to do with it.

Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 20:36:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:02 UTC