- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:54:47 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6301
Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dean@dean.org.nz
--- Comment #3 from Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz> 2009-01-03 14:54:46 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Without a doctype, it's not valid XHTML 1.0 anyway, so, when passing validation
> on validator.w3.org is a requirement you can't be doctypeless so long as it
> defaults to validating against XHTML 1.0.
>
Simon is correct, all XHTML 1.x documents are supposed to have a doctype. This
has been discussed before on the TAG mailing list where it was clarified that
XHTML5 is the only (X)HTML language allowed to not have a doctype.
When the W3C's validator is presented with a XHTML document served as
application/xhtml+xml or application/xml it should send it over to the
validator.nu part of the W3C's validator for checking as XHTML5. This of course
doesn't apply to people serving documents as text/html as there's no such thing
as XHTML5 served as text/html, the mime type/file ext is part of what
distinguishes XHTML5 from HTML [1]. So in the case of text/html it's best just
to validate the document as XHTML 1.0 transitional and tell them they need a
doctype (or even better, tell them to upgrade to HTML5 :-)).
[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#html-vs-xhtml
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 3 January 2009 14:54:59 UTC