W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2002

Re: application/xhtml+xml validation?

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:04:02 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: Dave Poirier <dpoirier@telecomoptions.com>, Henrik Edlund <henrik@edlund.org>
Message-ID: <r01050300-1015-D20358EAAE6911D6B07F00039300CF5C@[]>

Henrik Edlund <henrik@edlund.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Terje Bless wrote:
>>No, you are correct. Support for application/xhtml+xml is in the
>>development version and will go live in the next update. :-)
>How hard would it to simple add these MIME-type to the current version
>until you tested the development version enough?

As a simple coding problem, not significantly so. But there are other
issues involved that muddies the equation somewhat.

>Adding a MIME-type to the current script should not cause any problems
>at all if you written the good from the start.

And this is certainly a factor. The original infrastructure for these kinds
of issues was not necessary when the Validator was originally developed and
so didn't go in. The much bespoke Development version is precisely about
adding such infrastructure.

>This problem has been known for more than a year now, and the answer
>is always "the fix is in the development version".

Well, not quite. The specification of what application/xhtml+xml actually
/means/ has not been out all that long. And we're now getting really close
to releasing the new version (expect a beta to happen soon) so I'm not
inclined to spend too time on the old version. Patience Grasshopper! :-)

That said though, I did kinda drop the ball on application/xhtml+xml. I
should have added that ages ago.

But please (*please*!) do keep letting me know what is important to you!
Just because almost everything is answered by "It's in the development
version" doesn't mean you should stop sending issues here. Not everything
is done in devel, and there is also a question of /how/ you would like
things to work; not to mention that it helps set priorities for the /next/
development version.

All feedback is appreciated; do keep it coming!

Editor's note: in the last update,   we noted that Larry Wall would "vomment"
on existing RFCs. Some took that to be a cross between "vomit" and "comment."
We are unsure of whether it was a subconscious slip or a typographical error.
We are also unsure of whether or not to regret the error.      -- use.perl.org
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 23:07:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:29 UTC