- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:44:39 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 00:42 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> Hixie writes;
> > > This isn't hypothetical; it is the situation we are in today with XHTML
> > > documents sent as text/html. UAs cannot use XML parsers to parse these
> > > XHTML-sent-as-text/html documents, even if they could find a way to detect
> > > them, because a huge fraction of such documents are ill-formed and would
> > > thus render *worse* in new UAs than in legacy UAs.
>
> I don't understand why this is an issue. The authoritative metadata
> finding makes it clear that the media type determines how the document
> is to be interpreted, and nothing in RFC 2854 (text/html) or the HTML
> family of specifications suggests that running a text/html document
> through an XML parser would yield anything which meaningfully
> represents what the sender was trying to convey.
Perhaps you missed this?
[[
In addition, [XHTML1]
defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML
4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.
]]
-- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:44:57 UTC