- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:41:28 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Toby Inkster wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 18:40 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Which of course is caused by the fact that you simply can't serve >> XHTML as text/html. The media type is authoritative, so recipients >> will treat it as HTML. > > I think this is something that is often overstated. > > RFC 2854 notes that "different versions [of HTML] are distinguishable by > the DOCTYPE declaration contained within them", so -- assuming that > XHTML is a "version" of HTML, whatever that means -- it is not incorrect > behaviour to detect an XHTML DOCTYPE and perform version-specific > parsing on the content. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854#section-2> states: Published specification: The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations; the latest published version is [HTML401]. In addition, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html. So there's really nothing in there that would allow to use a different parser than then one for text/html. > I realise that many popular user agents (especially desktop browsers) do > not do this, but that doesn't make it wrong to do so. I believe it is wrong to do so, and that all desktop browsers get *this* one right. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 13:42:06 UTC