W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [minutes] XHTML and MIME types

From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:09:17 +0000
Message-Id: <3661D88A-42F4-48B5-8E9B-49EEF66BD63C@futureplatforms.com>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Luca

No-one is suggesting what application/xhtml+xml be disregarded, and  
it's listed as a good heuristic to use in CTG.

The difference of opinion here is over whether it's sufficiently good  
to be promoted beyond a heuristic to be mandatory.

Tom

On 8 Jan 2009, at 15:57, Luca Passani wrote:

> I think we are forgetting one basic requirements here. Transcoders  
> must err on the side of not transcoding whenever in doubt. I still  
> think that application/xhtml+xml is a strong indicator that the  
> content is probably already suitable for mobile. If W3C does not  
> want to take it as an absolute indicator, then you may want to  
> compromise on something like:
>
> If    MIME-Type=application/xhtml+xml
> AND
>     SIZE <= 20kb
> AND
>     No Web-only tags such as iframe nor complex HTML/Javascript
>
> THEN => MOBILE CONTENT (Do Not Touch)
>
> this would still be a much better heuristics than disregarding  
> application/xhtml+xml altogether.

--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 16:10:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 January 2009 16:10:02 GMT