Re: XHTML1: Suggested improvements to Appendix C (PR#6232)

On Thu, 28 May 2009, Shane McCarron wrote:
> >
> > Do you have a link to the most recent editor's draft of the XHTML 
> > specification so that I can see if the new text addresses my comments?
>
> Sure.  W3C XHTML 2 Drafts are publicly available via our drafts page [1] 
> - within that page you will find an updated XHTML 1 editors draft we are 
> preparing for PER - the latest is [2].  You might also want to look at 
> the Working Group Note that was published earlier this year [3].
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts
> [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/

Thanks.

With respect to the issue quoted below (PR#6232), I do not find the 
working group's response to be satisfactory, as the underlying problem is 
still present in the XHTML 1.0 3rd edition draft.

Specifically, I object to the following comment in section 5.1:

:  XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in [XHTMLMIME] 
:  may be labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854]
 -- http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#media

My original comments stand, namely that I request that either this prose 
be removed, disallowing XHTML documens to be sent as text/html, or that 
the guidelines set forth in [XHTMLMIME] have the changes listed below made 
to them, including in particular making the guidelines normative, and that 
the text following the above phrase, namely:

:  [...] as they are compatible with most HTML browsers.
 -- http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#media

...be changed to refer to "legacy Tag Soup user agents" or some similar 
wording that admits that XHTML cannot be made compatible with HTML, only 
with the error handling code of existing user agents.

Thank you for responding to my comments.


> > > > I believe the XHTML1 spec is wrong to allow XHTML to be sent as
> > > > text/html. While in theory XHTML1 can be made compatible with Tag Soup
> > > > UAs while still being valid and correct, the reality is that few
> > > > authors are able to do so.
> > > > 
> > > > I recommend that the working group consider releasing another edition
> > > > of XHTML1, that removes the ability to send XHTML as text/html.
> > > > 
> > > > However, if the working group does not wish to do this, I believe the
> > > > following changes need to be made to appendix C:
> > > > 
> > > >   1. Make the appendix normative.
> > > > 
> > > >   2. Change "on existing HTML user agents" to "on legacy Tag Soup user
> > > >      agents" or some similar wording that admits that XHTML cannot be
> > > >      made compatible with HTML, only with the error handling code of
> > > >      existing user agents.
> > > > 
> > > >   3. Change the suggestion that XML declarations should be omitted to
> > > >      a more strongly worded recommendation, as XML PIs trigger quirks
> > > >      mode in WinIE6 and are displayed verbatim on PocketIE.
> > > > 
> > > >   4. Remove one of the duplicated sentences in "C.4. Embedded Style
> > > >      Sheets and Scripts", and require that script and style blocks be
> > > >      neither "commented out" (with <!--/-->), nor enclosed in CDATA
> > > >      blocks, nor include any entities.
> > > > 
> > > >   5. Add a section requiring that <tbody> not be omitted.
> > > > 
> > > >   6. Change the "C.11. Document Object Model and XHTML" section
> > > >      slightly so that it requires that scripts be aware that when
> > > >      treated as XML, they should use the namespace-aware Core APIs,
> > > >      and when treated as HTML, it should use the DOM1 Core APIs;
> > > >      similarly, that all script compare tagNames and attributes by
> > > >      lowercasing them first.
> > > > 
> > > >   7. Require that stylesheets style the HTML element rather than the
> > > >      BODY element.
> > > > 
> > > >   8. Documents should not use the <meta http-equiv="Content-Type">
> > > >      element. (Actually this applies to all XHTML.)
> > > > 
> > > >   9. There should be no use of namespaces other than the XHTML one.
> > > >      (This is true of all valid XHTML elements anyway.)
> > > > 
> > > >  10. There should be no XML Stylesheet PIs anywhere. (See 3)
> > > > 
> > > > Overall, I think the language should be made more strict ("MUST"s
> > > > rather than "SHOULD" or "MAY"). Stricter requirements are a great help
> > > > when evangelising the use of correct markup.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 21:55:07 UTC