[whatwg] Re: repetition model

[Malcolm Rowe]

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
> served.

Yes, there is. RFC 2854 [1] 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[2] 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[3] also covers some of this, but not so 
specifically. 

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. 

Regards,
Malcolm 

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/