[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Lynx-dev] lynx misrenders many *IN*valid xhtml5 pages on my site

From: Lennart Jablonka
Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] lynx misrenders many *IN*valid xhtml5 pages on my site
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:55:08 +0000

Quoth Thorsten Glaser:
There’s HTML-compatible XHTML, which you can serve as text/html,
and there’s nōn-HTML-compatible XHTML, which you must serve as


and if you expect to serve websites you
may serve the latter only if explicitly requested by the browser
because the browser needs to be able to handle this, and e.g.
NCSA Mosaic won’t know how to do that.

No. If the browser is unable to handle it, so be it—no XHTML support, that’s just a feature not implemented that people might want—but the server is /not/ non-conforming.

Handling XHTML approximately by treating it as HTML-syntax HTML may be useful in stead of refusing to handle XHTML, but that is not implementing XHTML.

←←←             Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition) (p34 of 94)

Tags for Empty Elements

  [44]    EmptyElemTag    ::=    '<' [392]Name ([393]S [394]Attribute)*
  [395]S? '/>' [396][WFC: Unique Att Spec]

  Empty-element tags may be used for any element which has no content,
  whether or not it is declared using the keyword EMPTY. [397]For
  interoperability, the empty-element tag SHOULD be used, and SHOULD only
  be used, for elements which are declared EMPTY.

I.e., <asdf></asdf> and <asdf/> are equivalent. There is a recommendation on what not to do.

In the end effect, though, who cares about standards, what you need to
care about is browser compatibility. That being said the standards do
explicitly make room for browser compatibility as outlined in the above
snippet and referenced standards.

OK, here’s a snippet from the XHTML standard for this:

Which, of course, is not the only standard standardizing XML documents using the XHTML Media type and namespace; something conforming to WHATWG HTML is very much valid. That drops the compatibility guidelines. And indeed, the subject contains “xhtml5.”

XHTML 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Editi... (p22 of 39)
                           5. Compatibility Issues

  This section is normative.

  Although  there  is  no  requirement  for  XHTML  1.0  documents  to be
  compatible  with  existing  user  agents,  in  practice this is easy to
  accomplish.  Guidelines  for creating compatible documents can be found
  in [132]Appendix C.

5.1. Internet Media Type

  XHTML  Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in [133]Appendix
  C,  "HTML  Compatibility  Guidelines"  may be labeled with the Internet
  Media Type "text/html" [[134]RFC2854], as they are compatible with most
  HTML  browsers.  Those  documents, and any other document conforming to
  this  specification,  may  also be labeled with the Internet Media Type
  "application/xhtml+xml"  as  defined  in  [[135]RFC3236].  For  further

I.e., you need to follow the guidelines if you are XHTML and labeled text/html.

This normatively underlines what I wrote above.

It underlines one of your statements.


Yes: I understand your position and disagree.

Now excuse me, I’m kinda busy with $dayjob

Have a nice day.

and in no way obligated to
do your research for you.

It is not research that I could have done myself that I asked for, but your interpretation of the standards. Thank you for doing that despite not being obligated to do so.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]