- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:25:42 +0100
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
* Henry S. Thompson wrote: >I agree that a RDDL document by construction violates the implied >"SHOULD NOT" recommendation here. I'm not sure I think that >recommendation is correct for RDDL, however, in two ways: How about sending your feedback to www-html-editor@w3.org? RFC 2854 makes it currently pretty clear that only XHTML 1.0 documents that adhere to the guidelines set forth in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 Recommendation may be published using the text/html documents and e.g. the W3C Markup Validator consequently only recognizes text/html documents as XHTML documents if those use a XHTML 1.0 formal public identifier, so documents like http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.html cannot possibly pass the W3C Markup Validator. So either the HTML Working Group needs to change the rules or such documents should not use the text/html media type or not use RDDL as W3C should not publish HTML/XHTML documents that cannot pass their own Validator. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2005 20:14:42 UTC