Re: XHTML1: Suggested improvements to Appendix C (PR#6232)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHTML1: Suggested improvements to Appendix C (PR#6232)

Ian Hickson
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Shane McCarron wrote:

> >
> > Do you have a link to the most recent editor's draft of the XHTML
> > specification so that I can see if the new text addresses my comments?
>
> Sure.  W3C XHTML 2 Drafts are publicly available via our drafts page [1]
> - within that page you will find an updated XHTML 1 editors draft we are
> preparing for PER - the latest is [2].  You might also want to look at
> the Working Group Note that was published earlier this year [3].
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts
> [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/

Thanks.

With respect to the issue quoted below (PR#6232), I do not find the
working group's response to be satisfactory, as the underlying problem is
still present in the XHTML 1.0 3rd edition draft.

Specifically, I object to the following comment in section 5.1:

:  XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in [XHTMLMIME]
:  may be labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854]
 -- http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#media

My original comments stand, namely that I request that either this prose
be removed, disallowing XHTML documens to be sent as text/html, or that
the guidelines set forth in [XHTMLMIME] have the changes listed below made
to them, including in particular making the guidelines normative, and that
the text following the above phrase, namely:

:  [...] as they are compatible with most HTML browsers.
 -- http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#media

...be changed to refer to "legacy Tag Soup user agents" or some similar
wording that admits that XHTML cannot be made compatible with HTML, only
with the error handling code of existing user agents.

Thank you for responding to my comments.


> > > > I believe the XHTML1 spec is wrong to allow XHTML to be sent as
> > > > text/html. While in theory XHTML1 can be made compatible with Tag Soup
> > > > UAs while still being valid and correct, the reality is that few
> > > > authors are able to do so.
> > > >
> > > > I recommend that the working group consider releasing another edition
> > > > of XHTML1, that removes the ability to send XHTML as text/html.
> > > >
> > > > However, if the working group does not wish to do this, I believe the
> > > > following changes need to be made to appendix C:
> > > >
> > > >   1. Make the appendix normative.
> > > >
> > > >   2. Change "on existing HTML user agents" to "on legacy Tag Soup user
> > > >      agents" or some similar wording that admits that XHTML cannot be
> > > >      made compatible with HTML, only with the error handling code of
> > > >      existing user agents.
> > > >
> > > >   3. Change the suggestion that XML declarations should be omitted to
> > > >      a more strongly worded recommendation, as XML PIs trigger quirks
> > > >      mode in WinIE6 and are displayed verbatim on PocketIE.
> > > >
> > > >   4. Remove one of the duplicated sentences in "C.4. Embedded Style
> > > >      Sheets and Scripts", and require that script and style blocks be
> > > >      neither "commented out" (with <!--/-->), nor enclosed in CDATA
> > > >      blocks, nor include any entities.
> > > >
> > > >   5. Add a section requiring that <tbody> not be omitted.
> > > >
> > > >   6. Change the "C.11. Document Object Model and XHTML" section
> > > >      slightly so that it requires that scripts be aware that when
> > > >      treated as XML, they should use the namespace-aware Core APIs,
> > > >      and when treated as HTML, it should use the DOM1 Core APIs;
> > > >      similarly, that all script compare tagNames and attributes by
> > > >      lowercasing them first.
> > > >
> > > >   7. Require that stylesheets style the HTML element rather than the
> > > >      BODY element.
> > > >
> > > >   8. Documents should not use the <meta http-equiv="Content-Type">
> > > >      element. (Actually this applies to all XHTML.)
> > > >
> > > >   9. There should be no use of namespaces other than the XHTML one.
> > > >      (This is true of all valid XHTML elements anyway.)
> > > >
> > > >  10. There should be no XML Stylesheet PIs anywhere. (See 3)
> > > >
> > > > Overall, I think the language should be made more strict ("MUST"s
> > > > rather than "SHOULD" or "MAY"). Stricter requirements are a great help
> > > > when evangelising the use of correct markup.

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHTML1: Suggested improvements to Appendix C (PR#6232)

Shane McCarron
Ian,

Thanks for your comments.  In the call today we discussed how to try to
address (what we felt was) your core objection - that of normatively
defining handling for text/html.  While the group does NOT agree that
this draft document normatively requires anything with regard to
text/html, we do agree that the text in section 5.1 was poor.  We
suggest the following new wording, also reflected in [1]:


    5.1. Internet Media Type

XHTML 1.0 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type
"application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090602/#ref-rfc3236>]. For
informaiton on delivering XHTML 1.0 Documents to user agents that do not
natively handle this media type, see the informative note [XHTMLMIME
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090602/#ref-xhtmlmime>].

[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090602



Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Thu, 28 May 2009, Shane McCarron wrote:
>  
>>> Do you have a link to the most recent editor's draft of the XHTML
>>> specification so that I can see if the new text addresses my comments?
>>>      
>> Sure.  W3C XHTML 2 Drafts are publicly available via our drafts page [1]
>> - within that page you will find an updated XHTML 1 editors draft we are
>> preparing for PER - the latest is [2].  You might also want to look at
>> the Working Group Note that was published earlier this year [3].
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/
>>    
>
> Thanks.
>
> With respect to the issue quoted below (PR#6232), I do not find the
> working group's response to be satisfactory, as the underlying problem is
> still present in the XHTML 1.0 3rd edition draft.
>
> Specifically, I object to the following comment in section 5.1:
>
> :  XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in [XHTMLMIME]
> :  may be labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854]
>  -- http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#media
>
> My original comments stand, namely that I request that either this prose
> be removed, disallowing XHTML documens to be sent as text/html, or that
> the guidelines set forth in [XHTMLMIME] have the changes listed below made
> to them, including in particular making the guidelines normative, and that
> the text following the above phrase, namely:
>
> :  [...] as they are compatible with most HTML browsers.
>  -- http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#media
>
> ...be changed to refer to "legacy Tag Soup user agents" or some similar
> wording that admits that XHTML cannot be made compatible with HTML, only
> with the error handling code of existing user agents.
>
> Thank you for responding to my comments.
>
>
>  
>>>>> I believe the XHTML1 spec is wrong to allow XHTML to be sent as
>>>>> text/html. While in theory XHTML1 can be made compatible with Tag Soup
>>>>> UAs while still being valid and correct, the reality is that few
>>>>> authors are able to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend that the working group consider releasing another edition
>>>>> of XHTML1, that removes the ability to send XHTML as text/html.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if the working group does not wish to do this, I believe the
>>>>> following changes need to be made to appendix C:
>>>>>
>>>>>   1. Make the appendix normative.
>>>>>
>>>>>   2. Change "on existing HTML user agents" to "on legacy Tag Soup user
>>>>>      agents" or some similar wording that admits that XHTML cannot be
>>>>>      made compatible with HTML, only with the error handling code of
>>>>>      existing user agents.
>>>>>
>>>>>   3. Change the suggestion that XML declarations should be omitted to
>>>>>      a more strongly worded recommendation, as XML PIs trigger quirks
>>>>>      mode in WinIE6 and are displayed verbatim on PocketIE.
>>>>>
>>>>>   4. Remove one of the duplicated sentences in "C.4. Embedded Style
>>>>>      Sheets and Scripts", and require that script and style blocks be
>>>>>      neither "commented out" (with <!--/-->), nor enclosed in CDATA
>>>>>      blocks, nor include any entities.
>>>>>
>>>>>   5. Add a section requiring that <tbody> not be omitted.
>>>>>
>>>>>   6. Change the "C.11. Document Object Model and XHTML" section
>>>>>      slightly so that it requires that scripts be aware that when
>>>>>      treated as XML, they should use the namespace-aware Core APIs,
>>>>>      and when treated as HTML, it should use the DOM1 Core APIs;
>>>>>      similarly, that all script compare tagNames and attributes by
>>>>>      lowercasing them first.
>>>>>
>>>>>   7. Require that stylesheets style the HTML element rather than the
>>>>>      BODY element.
>>>>>
>>>>>   8. Documents should not use the <meta http-equiv="Content-Type">
>>>>>      element. (Actually this applies to all XHTML.)
>>>>>
>>>>>   9. There should be no use of namespaces other than the XHTML one.
>>>>>      (This is true of all valid XHTML elements anyway.)
>>>>>
>>>>>  10. There should be no XML Stylesheet PIs anywhere. (See 3)
>>>>>
>>>>> Overall, I think the language should be made more strict ("MUST"s
>>>>> rather than "SHOULD" or "MAY"). Stricter requirements are a great help
>>>>> when evangelising the use of correct markup.
>>>>>          
>
>  

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHTML1: Suggested improvements to Appendix C (PR#6232)

Ian Hickson
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Shane McCarron wrote:

>
>    5.1. Internet Media Type
>
> XHTML 1.0 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type
> "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236
> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090602/#ref-rfc3236>]. For
> informaiton on delivering XHTML 1.0 Documents to user agents that do not
> natively handle this media type, see the informative note [XHTMLMIME
> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090602/#ref-xhtmlmime>].
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090602

That's much better, thanks.

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'