- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:46:22 +0100
- To: elharo@metalab.unc.edu
- CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-tag@w3.org
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > ... > On this point, I have to call B.S. again. That a document is served as > text/html does not make it HTML. Much less does it make it not XML. If a > document satisfies the BNF grammar and the various well-formedness > constraints, it is XML, whatever you call it. It may also be HTML, and > perhaps other things as well. > ... Depends on whether you concentrate on the octet sequence alone, or add metadata, as served by HTTP. In the latter case it's certainly *not* BS. > The MIME type is not normative. That someone has labeled a document as > one thing or another does not make it that thing. It totally is. By sending XHTML as text/html I'm asking the recipient to handle the document as text/html. > If people are serving well-formed XML, it is likely they do so because > they find it useful to do so, whatever MIME type happens to be assigned. It could also be by ignorance. Why would you care, if it doesn't affect rendering in the UA? (Well, except for those like me who have an (X)HTML validator plugin running in Firefox, and always have an eye on the number of errors). BR, Julian PS: I *do* believe that XML on the web works. It just requires that people use the right tools to produce it. Just because many people don't get it right doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 07:47:15 UTC