- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:59:38 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr., Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:26:30 -0600: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> It at least purports to be XML. According to the pundits there is only >> two kinds of mark-up online - both of them stems from W3C: HTML and XML. > > I suspect you're referring to the recent comment I made, Interesting. > in which case > you definitely misunderstood what I meant. I said that anything > served as text/html is HTML, and anything served as one of the XML > mimetypes is XML. This was in reaction to a statement of yours that > there was somehow still some concept of "XHTML served as text/html". > There never was (it was always interpreted as a plain HTML page), and > HTML5 makes that explicit. Haiku. When did "XHTML served as text/html" disappear, then? The note about "XHTML Media Types" doesn't agree [1]. It is of course clear that text/HTML parsers treat anything one feeds them as text/HTML. (One exception: validator.nu.) But that is a different point. > I certainly never said that everything is either HTML or XML. What I had mind was more Ian when he speaks about HTML vs XML, and when it is clearly evident from the context that he by XML refers to XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml. Dropping SGML has lead to a communication problem: it becomes difficult to discern between the two syntaxes of HTML - XML vs SGML-insipired. I see new attempts at drawing the line in clear terms often - especially in Ian's messages. (And I make my own attempts as well.) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#media-types -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 20:00:13 UTC