- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:41:00 -0800
- To: mike@w3.org
- Cc: elharo@metalab.unc.edu, ht@inf.ed.ac.uk, annevk@opera.com, orchard@pacificspirit.com, hsivonen@iki.fi, www-tag@w3.org
Michael, I repeat B.S again. XHTML gets served as text/html -- not because it's full of erros, -- but rather because IE shows a "download this content?" dialog if you serve it as mime type application/xml+xhtml -- Michael(tm) Smith writes: > > Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, 2009-02-10 17:32 -0800: > > > 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, > > That's exactly the point. Much if not most of the XHTML content > being served as text/html on the Web does not satisfy XML > well-formedness constraints. The only reason it doesn't become > completely unusable in browsers is that it gets processed by HTML > parsers in browsers instead of by their XML parsers. If it were to > be served with a proper XML MIME type instead -- or if browsers > were to do sniffing for the XHTML doctype or namespace and > actually parse it as XML instead of as HTML -- it would fail to > remain accessible on the Web. > > > it is XML, whatever you call it. > > I guess some might call it broken XML. > > > It may also be HTML, and perhaps other things as well. > > > > The MIME type is not normative. That someone has labeled a document as one > > thing or another does not make it that thing. > > That may be the general case. In this specific case, serving a > document on the Web with the text/html MIME type makes it one very > definite thing: A document that will get processed as HTML > by browsers, not as XML. > > It also makes it a document that should (if the producer of the > document wants to ensure that browsers can actually process it as > expected, without needing to fall back to error correction) follow > HTML-specific constraints. > > That means the producers of such documents would need to follow > some constraints that XML tools are not able to check; for > example, they need to make sure they don't use self-closing tags > for elements that have required end tags, such as <script> or > <a name> instances. And they need to make sure that any <script> > or <style> element content follows HTML constraints, not XML/XHTML > constraints. > > > 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. > > I don't think that's necessarily likely at all. They may have just > copied an XHTML document from somewhere else and used it as a > template for their own content. Or they may be using an editor > that by default produces XHTML-namespaced documents with an XHTML > doctype. Or they may be attempting to produce XHTML (using an > XHTML doctype and namespace, quoting attribute values, using > self-closing-tag syntax on empty elements) just because they've > heard or been taught that's what they should be doing, without > having any real understanding of the supposed benefits of doing it. > > --Mike > > -- > Michael(tm) Smith > http://people.w3.org/mike/ -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ Google: tv+raman GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 17:42:54 UTC