- From: XStandard <lists@xstandard.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:22:55 -0500
- To: <zcorpan@hotmail.com>
- CC: <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, <ian@hixie.ch>, <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <ot@w3.org>, <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, <karl@w3.org>, <link@pobox.com>, <www-validator@w3.org>, <www-html@w3.org>
I may be missing something, but the validator should validate markup based on a given DOCTYPE and not how the markup is served. The W3C validator service is a _markup_ validator not a user-agent emulator. Regards, Vlad Alexander http://xstandard.com -------- Original Message -------- From: Simon Pieters Date: 12/5/2006 3:40 PM > > Hi, > > From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> >> Forgive the multiplicity of named recipients, but >> I am very uncertain as to whom to address this : >> >> There has been a fairly protracted discussion recently >> concerning the pros and cons of serving XHTML documents >> as text/html or as application/xhtml+xml, but I was more >> than a little surprised today to discover that when the >> W3C (HTML) validator is asked to validate >> >> http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/ >> >> it states that the (page) is "Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional" >> without issuing even a warning that it is being served as >> text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml. Now it is >> clear from Section 5.1 of >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ >> >> that this is acceptable, yet >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ >> >> also states clearly that >> >> "application/xhtml+xml SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents" >> >> My question is therefore : should not the validator issue >> a warning when this last guideline is ignored ? > > The XHTML Media Types note is not normative. However, see: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1500 > > Regards, > Simon Pieters > > _________________________________________________________________ > Martin Stenmarck som ringsignal http://msn.cellus.se/ > > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 22:23:29 UTC