W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] DOCTYPE shouldn't be optional (fwd)

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:23:53 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3104070907233503f5f@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:17:38 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > An XHTML document would therefore not be able to be served as
> > text/html, can you just clarify that this is deliberately meant to
> > prevent the XHTML as Appendix C carrying on - and XHTML WF documents
> > will be served as text/html would be a violation of the spec.
>    I think what Ian is saying here is that he is that the new text
> refers to XML that uses the XHTML namespace, 
> rather than XHTML specifically.

So XHTML is not an XML document?

> > If this is the case, why do we have XHTML version of the spec?
>    I don't see the logic in your reasoning. We should drop XHTML
> because Ian doesn't like it being used in the HTML MIME type?

No, because WF2 is only relevant to legacy clients, and legacy clients
mostly only support text/html.

Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 07:23:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC