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
requirements?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----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
there
> 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
sense.

> 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
DOCTYPEs
> for use in text/html

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

-Boris
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