- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:10:00 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
On 10/26/06, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 00:42 -0400, Mark Baker wrote: > > 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 Right, I was aware of that, but I meant - and should have said - "an *arbitrary* text/html document". Ian's scenario didn't mention anything about that profile, so I assumed it wasn't in play. Mark.
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:10:16 UTC