W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [WICD] comments

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:20:55 +1100
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601302120g4927d92es9de8cfcb4299f32e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Cc: public-cdf@w3.org

Hi Bert,

On 1/29/06, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:
> 2) 3.1 Identification
>
> A type like "text/xhtml+xml; profile=WICD" would be easier to
> understand, easier to remember, shorter, would not look like a URL and
> would not need quote marks. A parameter like that would also be
> case-insensitive, like the rest of the MIME type.

Per RFC 3236 (as Anne referenced), the value of the profile parameter
must be a URI, so that's why we used one.

> Also, WICD is a text/* type, not application/*. The most useful fallback
> for a UA is to show it, not to save it to disk. That's why it has a
> charset parameter.

Actually, it's generally agreed in IETF circles that "text/html" was
the incorrect type to use for HTML, which is the reason the former
HTML WG opted for "application/xhtml+xml" for XHTML.  See;

http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00622.html

For that reason, and because we want to be able to reuse existing
supported media types, we have decided to stick with
application/xhtml+xml.

Thanks very much for your interest in our work.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 05:21:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:40 GMT