- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:33:07 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
- Cc: "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@microsoft.com>, "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Didier PH Martin wrote: > > I tried some of the links you mentioned and tried to validate the > documents. MSN seems to be really an XML document but at 20:16 eastern > time, Sunday evening, the IBM site is not, the gnome site is not. I > stopped after having tested these three sites where 2 out of 3 were not > valid XML document but more valid HTML documents. Maybe I wasn't lucky > :-) Absolutely -- because UAs treat XHTML documents sent as text/html not as XML but as tag soup, authors often don't notice that their documents are invalid. (This is why I think it was a bad idea to say that XHTML documents may be sent text/html.) However, the document are definitely intended to be XHTML: The DOCTYPEs, the "xmlns" attributes, the "/>" bits at the end of empty elements -- all of these are clear signs. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 18 August 2002 20:33:14 UTC