Re: Comments on HTML WG face to face meetings in France Oct 08

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:18 AM,  <> wrote:
>>> Sorry, but I don't get this "clean content" thing.
>> I don't want to start a long flame war here, as I felt I had a good chance
>> to express my feelings at the F2F, but I'll be glad to clarify what I
>> intended (speaking for myself, not the TAG).  Let's start with some things
>> that I think we all agree.  In particular, HTML5 as drafted provides that
>> browsers will accept quite a range of input as text/html.
> The XML spec also accepts quite a range of input as text/xml. Most of
> it is invalid XML though. Same thing for HTML5. HTML5 is a bit laxer
> though due to what it has inherited from the HTML4 specification. I.e.
> I don't think we want to make something that was valid HTML4 invalid
> HTML5. At least in general.

Actually, this was poor wording on my part. Here is why I should say:

Browsers will take any random stream of data server as text/html and 
display *something* yes. I'm sure we've all run into a binary file such 
as a GIF file being served as text/html and seen nothing but garbage on 
the screen.

This does not affect what HTML5 considers valid though. HTML5 is very 
strict in what it considers valid.

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 11:18:18 UTC