- From: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:35:35 +1300
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Julian Reschke wrote: > > Dean Edridge wrote: >> ... >> Since Steven Pemberton is the HTML Activity Lead, surely he must have >> read the HTML5 spec and known that the XHTML variant of HTML5 was >> identified by the mime type and namespace and not by any doctype. >> There needs to be some sort of identification so that any (X)HTML5 >> documents are not confused with XHTML1.x documents. Up until now it's >> been fine since all XHTML1.x specs have used a doctype, now that it's >> been noticed that the XHTML variant of HTML5 doesn't use a doctype, >> another WG decides to copy that idea and create problems. >> ... > > I *strongly* disagree with this opinion. If the only method to > "understand" the meaning of an HTML (or XML) tag is to check the doc > type, we are in deep trouble. I'm not saying that it is the *only* way to identify a document. And I never mentioned "understand". I never said any of that :) If the W3C_Validator sees a document with a XHTML1.x doctype it would validate it against XHTML1.1+RDFa conformance criteria. If it sees a document being sent as application/xhtml+xml with no doctype it can pass it over to the Validator.nu/HTML5-facet part of the W3C_Validator and the HTML5 feature would check it to see if it is a valid XHTML variant of HTML5 document, just like it does today with HTML5 documents that contain the HTML5 doctype. I'm not sure what it is that you're referring to. > Many tools never will see the doc type (such as XSLT), and the > association will be broken as soon as document fragments are copied > into other documents. > > BR, Julian > I don't see how your comment is related to what I have requested. -- Dean Edridge
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 12:36:10 UTC