W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: let authors choose text/html or application/xhtml+xml (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:21:26 +0100
Message-ID: <46D823E6.3060600@cam.ac.uk>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
CC: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> Dean Edridge wrote:
>>
>> As soon as the document is given the media type "text/html" it becomes 
>> a HTML document, simple as that.
> 
> Unless, of course, said document happens to contain the the following 
> bytes in the first 512 octets:
> 
>   0x3C 0x72 0x73 0x73
> 
> I continue to believe that the specification should define a canonical 
> media type of "application/html" for the SGML inspired serialization of 
> HTML5 and then proceed to define appropriate content sniffing rules for 
> "text/html".
> 
> Furthermore "application/html" should join "text/plain" and 
> "application/xhtml+xml" as content types that are *never* sniffed.

I don't understand why this is likely to work better than defining the 
content-type header to be authoritative has been in the case of text/html. In 
general, the people who would correctly make such a distinction are not the ones 
whos content relies on sniffing to work as expected. I get the feeling I may be 
missing some subtlety in your point though.

(FWIW, on the wider subject, I suscribe to the view that the spec should not 
suggest that anything sent as text/html can be considered XHTML; this is 
contrary to the way such content is processed by UAs and has no obvious benefits 
to authors yet increases the possibility of misunderstanding).

-- 
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
  -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 14:21:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC