Re: text/html for html and xhtml

Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> writes:

>> Or, if that is too hard or too politically difficult,
>> going forward the WG should provide a formula for the front of a
>> document that asks for an xhtml parse.
>
> What is the benefit over using a MIME type as now, though?

1.  Many search engines appear not to look at application/xhtml+xml.
    So, for example, it is essentially impossible to search for web
    pages containing math when they are served in a W3C
    standards-compliant way.  (Articulate searching within MathML
    elements is a separate issue that is too far a reach for now.)

2.  Many content providers have reported that they are stranded,
    i.e., their contractors who receive the content by "upload" for
    subsequent placement under the eye of an http server do not
    support application/xhtml+xml.

(And, of course, "text/xml" and "application/xml" are non-specific
mimetypes for which there is no base namespace.  They are sane content
channels for web browsers only when display is entirely controlled
with something like CSS.)

                                    -- Bill