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

RE: Versioning and html[5] : application/xhtml+xml

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 09:44:24 -0700
To: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>, Alan Dean <alan.dean@gmail.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5C276AFCCD083E4F94BD5C2DA883F05A27DA259ACE@tk5-exmlt-w600.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Dão Gottwald [mailto:dao@design-noir.de] wrote:
>Alan Dean schrieb:
>> 1) IE7 will not render an xhtml document presented as
>> application/xhtml+xml.
>> 2) There is, therefore, nothing to break (it already doesn't work).
>> 3) Given 1 and 2 above, is it feasible to support a 'clean' html[5]
>> when presented as application/xhtml+xml and preserve backwards
>> compatibility when presented with text/html?
>Roughly the same question can be (and was) asked for <!DOCTYPE html>.
>(It is supported by IE7, but not used in today's documents.) Ideally, I

That's not exactly the same, though it's close.  The major difference is that with the different MIME type, IE will do nothing with it at all - pop a "save as" dialog, I think - so it is not possible to use it (unless you configure your server to send it as text/html).  You can use <!DOCTYPE html> today - although virtually no one does today.

>want IE to have one decent rendering mode for HTML5 and above,
>regardless of the mime type.


>If Microsoft supports such a mode before
>the significant bugs are fixed and without an opt-in, it'll be just
>another quirks mode and we need yet another doctype or mime-type switch.

Who defines "significant"?

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 16:44:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:20 UTC