[Bug 6301] Check as XHTML5 for doctypeless XHTML


--- Comment #8 from Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>  2009-01-05 15:17:41 ---
Hi Simon

> > (these pages should be treated the same as
> > doctypeless XHTML pages were treated prior to (X)HTML5).
> (Why?)

Um, well, I don't know, how do you think we should deal with text/html pages
that contain the XHTML namespace? They aren't XHTML5 if they are text/html,
right? But I guess the author may be trying/intending to use XHTML5. I'm not
sure how this should work, I thought I had it figured out, but perhaps I

> > It is *only* pages
> > served as application/xhtml+xml or application/xml that can omit the doctype.
> > For a page to be valid HTML5 or XHTML5 it must either have a doctype like:
> > "<!DOCTYPE html>" or have no doctype at all and be served as
> > application/xhtml+xml or application/xml (I'm waiting to here back from Henri
> > regarding how we should deal with doctypeless text/xml as it's not a valid
> > XHTML5 mime type).
> No, XHTML5 may have any XML MIME type

I thought it was just application/xhtml+xml or application/xml, is this not
correct Simon? I wish someone had corrected me earlier.

> and any (or no) doctype.

Yes, I agree, that is what I meant to say, I guess I didn't write it out very
well sorry.

> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#authors-using-xhtml

Yeah, I've read that part of the spec many times before, but it seems I may
have been wrong about the mime types. It only mentions application/xhtml+xml
and application/xml so I have always thought it was just those two.

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 Monday, 5 January 2009 15:17:56 UTC