[Haskell-cafe] ANNOUNCE: Haddock version 2.8.0

[David Menendez]

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, John Millikin <jmillikin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 20:39, Albert Y. C. Lai <trebla at vex.net> wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, using foreign namespaces is one of the things recommended against
when serving XHTML as text/html. This says nothing about documents
following the recommendations in Appendix C.

> 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.

I agree, if by "absurd" you mean "consistent with the letter and
spirit of the XHTML recommendation".

-- 
Dave Menendez <dave at zednenem.com>
<http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>