RE: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

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: []
On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:49 AM
To: Leif Halvard Silli
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