[whatwg] DOCTYPE shouldn't be optional (fwd)
jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 07:23:53 PDT 2004
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:17:38 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > An XHTML document would therefore not be able to be served as
> > text/html, can you just clarify that this is deliberately meant to
> > prevent the XHTML as Appendix C carrying on - and XHTML WF documents
> > will be served as text/html would be a violation of the spec.
> I think what Ian is saying here is that he is that the new text
> refers to XML that uses the XHTML namespace,
> rather than XHTML specifically.
So XHTML is not an XML document?
> > If this is the case, why do we have XHTML version of the spec?
> I don't see the logic in your reasoning. We should drop XHTML
> because Ian doesn't like it being used in the HTML MIME type?
No, because WF2 is only relevant to legacy clients, and legacy clients
mostly only support text/html.
More information about the whatwg