From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: bug with gitweb on kernel.org Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:18:52 -0700 Message-ID: <462D4CEC.6010204@zytor.com> References: <1177286943.24896.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1177294925.24896.48.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nicolas Pitre , git@vger.kernel.org To: "J.H." X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 24 02:20:03 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hg8lH-0005gK-4a for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:20:03 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030839AbXDXAT7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:19:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030937AbXDXAT7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:19:59 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:53700 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030839AbXDXAT6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:19:58 -0400 Received: from [172.27.0.16] (c-67-169-144-158.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.144.158]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l3O0Iqsl015737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:18:52 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) In-Reply-To: <1177294925.24896.48.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/3152/Mon Apr 23 15:34:59 2007 on terminus.zytor.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on terminus.zytor.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: J.H. wrote: > > Well the only difference in the pages being served is the mime type > application/html vs. application/xhtml+xml. Does anyone know the > original impetus to using application/xhtml+xml (despite the fact that > it's technically the correct choice) vs. just using application/html for > everything? I'm sure there was a good reason behind it and I'd rather > know what that reason was before I got changing things > Presumably the motivation is so you know ahead of time that you can invoke an XML parser rather than an SGML/HTML parser. Note: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ states that text/html is considered acceptable for HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 but no other version of XHTML 1.0. One of the main issues with making XHTML 1.0-compatible is to make sure there is a space before the final / in the last singleton: rather than -hpa