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

(unknown charset) Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 00:17:09 +0200
To: (unknown charset) Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: (unknown charset) public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100514001709340471.fbabafab@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Boris Zbarsky, Thu, 13 May 2010 10:49:14 -0400:
> 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. 

Even if? Especially when. Is there something to fix? Certainly. 

> If the file has an HTML MIME type, then "XHTML syntax" doesn't make 
> sense.

What does it mean that a file "has an HTML MIME type"? Do you mean, 
like, forever?

The point with polyglot documents is that the MIME type can change. 
KompoZer handles polyglot XHTML editing already - and it does it in in 
text/html mode. What's the problem with that? 
 
>> XHTML5 doesn't have a specific XHTML doctype
> 
> But it does have a MIME type.

Most editors doesn't have an particular mode, however, since they are 
just text editors. Most text editors doesn't even discern between XHTML 
and HTML mode. But text editors have features such as autocomplete etc, 
and they need to know what kind of syntax to create. Also, the issue is 
about *polyglot* specs. Editing in the XHTML MIME type doesn't 
guarantee polyglot syntax.
 
>> 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.

The polyglot spec is not your cup of tea then, I gather.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 22:17:44 UTC

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