- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:34:19 +0000
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, david@djwhome.demon.co.uk, jkorpela@cs.tut.fi, karl@w3.org, link@pobox.com, www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
olivier Thereaux wrote: > Also, as RFC2854 says, «XHTML1 defines a profile of use of XHTML which > is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.» Is this true ? If I have understood previous messages correctly (I believe it is Jukka who has made this point before, but I may be wrong), then the following has two entirely different meanings depending as one is interpreting the document as XHTML or as HTML : <meta name="..." content="..." /> Is it not the case that this may appear /within/ the head region if interpreted as XHTML, but /terminates/ the head region if interpreted as HTML ? >> My question is therefore : should not the validator issue >> a warning when this last guideline is ignored ? > > The plan I have is to have the validator issue a note, when finding > content served as text/html and matching the doctypes for XHTML 1.0, > suggesting to run the content through the HTML compatibility checker > (demo'd at [1]). Not convinced that a note is adequate : I really do believe that this is (one of the few genuine) cases for a warning (unlike "background-color" in CSS !). > Hopes this helps answering your questions. As always, Olivier : many thanks. ** Phil.
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 18:35:04 UTC