- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:09:48 -0500
- To: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- CC: whatwg@whatwg.org, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org
William F Hammond wrote: >> Perhaps you should clearly state your definitions of "bad" and "good" >> in this case? I'd also like to know, given those definitions, why >> it's bad for the "bad" documents to drive out the "good", and how you >> think your proposal will prevent that from happening. > > "Good" and "bad" here apply to document instances. "Good" means > compliant xhtml+(mathml|svg)*; "bad", as I casually used it, means > other. OK. > My only point is that a user agent should parse as xml a > document whose preamble indicates xhtml even when the mimetype is > text/html. That would break a large fraction of popular websites out there. In addition detecting "the preamble" requires assumption of a parsing model. I'm pretty sure one can construct documents that have different "preambles" when treated as HTML and XML. > Or, if that is too hard or too politically difficult, > going forward the WG should provide a formula for the front of a > document that asks for an xhtml parse. What is the benefit over using a MIME type as now, though? -Boris
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2008 04:10:44 UTC