[whatwg] DOCTYPE shouldn't be optional (fwd)

Matthew Raymond mattraymond at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 9 07:34:28 PDT 2004

Jim Ley wrote:
> So XHTML is not an XML document?

    I didn't say that. I said that XML is not an XHTML document. It's 
similar to how a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

>>   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.

    I think you're forgetting the WF2 clients that support XHTML. Also, 
I believe Mozilla, Opera and Safari all support XHTML, so why would 
employees of these companies define a standard that requires them to 
treat HTML and XHTML differently?

More information about the whatwg mailing list