Re: validator.w3.org and XHTML

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:17:26 +0100, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Opera got a bug report today regarding a page that has a text/html  
>> media type, XHTML 1.0 DOCTYPE and all, and uses <title/> rather than  
>> <title></title> (incorrect per Appendix C if memory serves me right).
>
> Appendix C is informative, and the working group have been very clear  
> that it is a set of guidelines for authors to think about and not a set  
> of conformance requirements. It's one of the reasons that I've  
> considered XHTML as text/html to be something of a joke for some years  
> now.

And obsolete per HTML5, but as long as the validator endorses it in a way  
that makes people think it is parsed as XML there is an issue.


> It should be noted that Appendix C is likely to be superseded by  
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml-media-types-20081126/ when it is  
> finished (and that should be very, very soon, but [hopefully] not before  
> " It contains no absolute requirements, and should NEVER be used as the  
> basis for creating conformance nor validation rules of any sort.  
> Period." is changed, since it can easily be interested in such a way to  
> forbid writing a QA tool based on it).

I guess that document will be obsoleted by HTML5 which defines rules for  
the text/html media type.


>> Per HTML5 and for security reasons (reparsing causes issues in face of  
>> injected scripts and all) we show a blank page.
>
> TBH, since HTML5 is throwing out the idea of HTML being an SGML  
> application, I'm surprised the parsing rules don't follow XML for <foo  
> />.

Power of legacy. :-/


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 13:39:19 UTC