[whatwg] Re: repetition model
malcolm-what at farside.org.uk
Thu Jun 24 08:41:29 PDT 2004
Jim Ley writes:
>> And no, you can't send an XForms document as text/html, because it's
>> neither valid HTML nor XHTML Appendix C-compliant.
> There's no requirement that text/html be either of those things, to be
Yes, there is. RFC 2854  defines the valid contents for text/html data as
either HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 complying with Appendix C.
It also documents that text/html content generally contains 'invalid'
content (per those specs), but it doesn't make it legal to send such content
as text/html, just notes that users should follow Postel's Law.
If you need more references, the W3C TAG's 'Authoritative Metadata'
finding basically says, among other things, that if you send me something
marked as text/html, I must not interpret it as anything other than
text/html as defined by spec; in particular, I must not interpret it as a
XForms document, or a document with XML namespaces.
The TAG Web Architecture document also covers some of this, but not so
So, no, you really can't legally send and interpret an XForms document sent
as text/html without violating both the RFC that defines what text/html
means and also a W3C finding that describes how the web works.
More information about the whatwg