- From: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:40:12 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1452bf810910282140j5ba1ffa0gce09b8c641011ec2@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks! That makes sense. Firebug was right, if the same page is served as application/xhtml+xml it's rendered well. So now I wonder what's the best thing to do. Keep the old text/html and not use the shorthand notation, or switch to Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml . I think we're too late in the development process of Drupal 7 to change the Content-Type, as I'm not sure what the side effects are. Steph. On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote: > Toby Inkster wrote: > >> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 14:12 -0400, Stephane Corlosquet wrote: >> >>> There are only 10 EMPTY tags in HTML 1.0, and neither div nor span is >>> part of these. I looked in XHTML 1.1 and didn't find anything. The >>> RDFa DTD [2] does not declare new EMPTY tags either. Can someone point >>> me to some specs or a DTD which explains why the empty tag notation is >>> allowed in RDFa? >>> >> >> If you read the XHTML 1.0 spec, you'll find that <div/> is perfectly >> valid. Appendix C discourages it in favour of <div></div>, but Appendix >> C is informative, not normative. >> >> XHTML 1.1 was written as more of a "pure XML application" with >> backwards-compatibility with non-X HTML less in mind, so takes the >> they-parse-exactly-the-same-under-XML-rules approach. RDFa is built on >> XHTML 1.1 rather than XHTML 1.0, thus inherits the "who cares whether >> you use <div></div> or <div/>?" philosophy - in theory. >> >> In practice, if you're serving RDFa using the text/html Content-Type, >> you'll want to pay attention to the Appendix C guidelines of XHTML 1.0, >> and avoid writing <div/>. >> >> This is true for any XHTML-family language, not just RDFa - in theory >> <div/> and <div></div> are identical, but in practise, served as >> text/html, they're parsed very differently. >> > > 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. > > BR, Julian > > >
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2009 04:41:50 UTC