On 10-09-04 01:31 AM, John Millikin wrote:
It's not correct. Here's the exact same XHTML document (verify by
viewing the source), served with different mimetypes:
http://ianen.org/temp/inline-svg.html
http://ianen.org/temp/inline-svg.xhtml
This relies on xhtml+svg. While it is in the xhtml family, it is not
xhtml 1.0 (Section 3.1.2). This is a non-example and non-reason.
New haddock pages are xhtml 1.0 (after repairing IDs).
I'm not debating that it's *possible* to serve HTML with an XHTML
mimetype and still see something rendered to the screen. Hundreds of
thousands of sites do so every day. But to call this XHTML is absurd.
You have got the order reversed.
serve html with an xhtml mimetype /= serve xhtml with the html mimetype
But suppose you made a typo.
And bear in mind again we are talking about specifically xhtml 1.0, and
furthermore with restrictions.
"serve xhtml with the html mimetype, call this xhtml" is not absurd. The
syntax is xhtml.
"serve xhtml with the html mimetype, call this html" is not absurd. A
bit of a kludge, yes --- officially blessed kludge, mind you. But not
absurd.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
