On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 20:39, Albert Y. C. Lai
In theory, what does file extension matter? Media type is the dictator. The normative Section 5.1 permits the choice of application/xhtml+xml or text/html. While the latter entails extra requirements in the informative Appendix C, as far as I can see (after all IDs are repaired) they are all met.
In a cunning combination of theory and practice in our reality, the file extension .html implies the media type text/html unless the server specifies otherwise. But since text/html is allowed in theory, so is .html allowed in practice. Indeed, Internet Explorer plays along just fine with text/html; it stops only when you claim application/xhtml+xml. For example http://www.vex.net/~trebla/xhtml10.html works.
This is a correct use of xhtml 1.0, and I fully endorse it.
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 Notice that the version served as HTML does not render properly. This is because the browser is treating it as HTML with an unknown doctype, not as XHTML. 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.