- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:07:37 +0900
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Le 6 avr. 2007 à 07:52, Shane McCarron a écrit :
> as we all know, lots of XHTML 1 documents get served as text/html
> when in fact they are really well-formed, valid XML.
It doesn't matter :) Again the example of source code below.
>> Imagine you want to serve the source code of this document sending
>> it then as text/plain. With the above reasoning, it would mean
>> that we do not respect the intent of the author.
>>
>> If you send it as text/html, it is HTML
>> If you send it as application/xhtml+xml it is xml
> If you send it as text/html, it *might* be XHTML.
The fact that "it might be" is not relevant here BUT... (follow me a
bit more)
> Since we tell people they can do that. So, since we tell them
> that, we should at least provide some way to help them validate
> things that they serve up as that. Maybe we do this already and I
> don't know where the control is.
What we could do, but we have to see with olivier and public-qa-dev
community, is to have an additional option:
* Validate this document with this mime-type
- text/html
- application/xhtml+xml
- etc.
There are options for encodings and document types already, look at
the validator right now and [beta][1]. It complicates a bit more and
might lead to usability problems. We, all of us, have to think about it.
But in the case it would be a reasonable option, as you proposed
earlier for RDFa, would you be ready to develop the perl code for it?
Many thanks
[1]: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/detailed.html#validate-by-uri
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 00:08:47 UTC