[whatwg] Re: repetition model

Malcolm Rowe malcolm-what at farside.org.uk
Thu Jun 24 09:44:34 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
>> > 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) 

Where does it say that in RFC2854? 

"Published specification:
     The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations;
     the latest published version is [HTML401].  In addition, [XHTML1]
     defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML
     4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html." 

That seems to me to be a fair argument that text/html has to either conform 
to the HTML4 or XHTML 1.0-appendix-C specs. 

> 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.

Agreed. Actually, to whomever has control of the text/html MIME type - I'm 
not sure if that's actually the W3C or IETF.  Perhaps IETF with W3C's 

>> [text/html interpretted as something else]
> So it must not be interpreted as a Web Forms 2 document either then.


There are, of course, exceptions for stuff that's in development, otherwise 
you'd never be able to develop anything :) 

But yes, generally, I agree. We need to submit this to a standards 
organisation after we've got a stable spec, and after we've got two 
interoperable implementations. 


More information about the whatwg mailing list