- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:54:46 -0000
- To: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, <www-annotation@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>
"Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> > From: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com> > > > > Well of course you would, they're different documents! > > > > > > No, the same document, served with different media types. It is the > > > same > > > document, but the result of the media types means it gets parsed > > > differently. > > > > Can you have an xhtml1.1 document that is served as text/html ? > > That is defined by RFC 2854. I believe you could manipulate an xhtml 1.1 > document in a similar way to Appendix C of XHTML 1.0 > (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines) so that it would be acceptable to > a UA that accepts text/html. It wouldn't be XHTML 1.1 to that UA of course, > but it would still be an XHTML 1.1 document. (I'm not sure if this answers > your question). You can't follow those guidelines and have a valid XHTML 1.1. document (Guidline C.7 creates an invalid document.) so the simple Appendix C guidelines are not sufficient. The HTML WG have obviously already solved this http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ is served as text/html - could you make public how you solved it? Certainly some of my UA's that only accept text/html have some difficulties with it. > So if you gave the above pointer to someone, what they would see would > depend on the settings of their content negotiation parameters. That's always true of xpointer though, it only exist for a given document, content-negotiation defeats all the fragment identifier schemes. Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 08:59:38 UTC