- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:49:13 +0200 (EET)
- To: "T.B. van der Molen" <tbm@home.nl>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, T.B. van der Molen wrote: > 0. Is <li /> correct XHTML 1.1 (and correct XHTML 1.0 Strict)? Yes, but not recommended, since you should use the notation only for elements with EMPTY declared content. If you use <li />, it is by definition equivalent to <li></li>. > I wasn't > able to find out anywhere on the web. It's in the XHTML and XML specifications. > Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with > an SGML parser. > > Shouldn't that be an XML parser? Yes, but the validator is really an SGML validator that has been tuned to act as an XML validator as well. > 2. On <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#mime11> I read that using > the text/html content-type is invalid for XHTML 1.1 documents "Invalid" is not the right word here. The FAQ entry says: "Why is it disallowed to send XHTML 1.1 documents as text/html? XHTML 1.1 is pure XML, and only intended to be XML. It cannot reliably be sent to legacy browsers. Therefore XHTML 1.1 documents must be sent with an XML-related media type, such as application/xhtml+xml." This, however, is not part of a specification, despite looking like normative prose. It's actually a debated issue what the W3C recommendations really say about the issue. But it's not a validation question. > But when > uploading an XHTML 1.1 document with this content-type and the <li /> > tag, the validator asserts that the document has the text/html > content-type and again says to have parsed the document with an SGML > parser. How did you upload it, and how you do know it was uploaded with that Content-Type, and how could the <li /> tag affect this? Browsers often don't provide for tools to specify the Content-Type of documents in file upload. Hence, it is safer to upload the document onto a Web server and use the "validate by URL" feature. > 3. On <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html#strict> an example > XHTML 1.1 document is given that has no content-type meta tag at all. Who said that meta tags are needed? > Is the example on the given page incorrect by omitting the meta tag or > does it simply assume that an HTTP server will be specifying the > content-type? The latter. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 18:49:47 UTC