- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:27:57 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=785
ot@w3.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Comment #20 from ot@w3.org 2007-09-27 10:27 -------
(In reply to comment #19)
> Well if the W3C would stop misleading everyone with the appendix C circus and
> start helping people to use XHTML properly we wouldn't be having this
> conversation and this bug would not exist. The fact is you can't use XHTML on
> the web today with out using server-side content negotiation.
Your intensity about the issue is appreciated, and I hope that you are as
adamant in lobbying browser vendors not properly supporting XHTML.
I am not a fan of appendix C, actually, but I am working on a tool that is
supposed to respect and enforce standardized rules.
This is why the validator is not complaining about XHTML 1.0 served as
text/html (we do have a bug about making the validator complain if a text/html
XHTML 1.0 document does not respect said appC).
This is why the validator is sending a warning (not an error...) when XHTML 1.1
is served as text/html. Whether a broken browser is a good reason to do this,
whether it is a good idea to serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html to IE, search engines
and other agents, whether this actually helps or hinders the progress of XHTML
on the web, is off-topic for the validator.
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 10:28:08 UTC