- From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:40:32 +0000
- To: P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk, ian@hixie.ch, david@djwhome.demon.co.uk, ot@w3.org, jkorpela@cs.tut.fi, karl@w3.org, link@pobox.com
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Hi, From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> >Forgive the multiplicity of named recipients, but >I am very uncertain as to whom to address this : > >There has been a fairly protracted discussion recently >concerning the pros and cons of serving XHTML documents >as text/html or as application/xhtml+xml, but I was more >than a little surprised today to discover that when the >W3C (HTML) validator is asked to validate > > http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/ > >it states that the (page) is "Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional" >without issuing even a warning that it is being served as >text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml. Now it is >clear from Section 5.1 of > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ > >that this is acceptable, yet > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ > >also states clearly that > > "application/xhtml+xml SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents" > >My question is therefore : should not the validator issue >a warning when this last guideline is ignored ? The XHTML Media Types note is not normative. However, see: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1500 Regards, Simon Pieters _________________________________________________________________ Martin Stenmarck som ringsignal http://msn.cellus.se/
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 20:40:50 UTC