[whatwg] Re: repetition model

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:41:29 +0100, Malcolm Rowe
<malcolm-what at farside.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.

No it does not (any HTML formats including tag-soup is allowable) and
if it does, then the WF2 couldn't be served as text/html either unless
it went to the W3C who have change control over it chose to change the
registration.
 
> 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.

So it must not be interpreted as a Web Forms 2 document either then.

Jim.